Author of “The Coming Collapse of China”, Gordon Chang, discusses the effect of President Trump’s tariffs on China and the epic battle ahead.  Last night China announced their feeble retaliatory actions – SEE HERE.  A professionally nervous Maria Bartiromo, frames a series of questions from the perspective of Wall Street.

Fortunately Gordon Chang understands the Red Dragon, and more importantly understands Chinese Chairman Xi Jinping’s geopolitical goals through economic conquest. Mr. Chang is one of the few people who appear regularly in media and know the truth behind the Panda Mask.

.

People often talk about the ‘strength’ of China’s economic model; and indeed within a specific part of their economy -manufacturing- they do have economic strength.

However, the underlying critical architecture of the Chinese economic model is structurally flawed and President Trump with his current economic team understand the weakness better than all international adversaries.

China is a central planning economy.  Meaning it never was an outcropping of natural economic conditions.  China was/is controlled as a communist style central-planning government; As such, it is important to reference the basic structural reality that China’s economy was created from the top down.

This construct of government creation is a key big picture distinction that sets the backdrop to understand how weak the economy really is.

Any nations’ economic model is only as stable (or strong) as the underlying architecture or infrastructure of the actual country.

Think about economic strength and stability this way: If a nation was economically walled off from all other nations, can it survive?  …can it sustain itself?

In the big picture – economic strength is an outcome of the ability of a nation, any nation, to support itself first and foremost.   If a nations’ economy is dependent on other nations’ for it to inherently survive it is less strong than a nation whose economy is more independent.

You might not realize it, but China is an extremely dependent nation.

When the central planning for the 21st century Chinese Economy was constructed, there were several critical cultural flaws, dynamics exclusive to China, that needed to be overcome in order to build their economic model.  It took China several decades to map out a way to economic growth that could overcome the inherent critical flaws.

Critical Flaws To Exploit:

♦Because of the oppressive nature of the Chinese compliant culture, the citizens within China do not innovate or create.  The “Compliance Mindset” is part of the intellectual DNA strain of a Chinese citizen.

Broadly speaking, the modern era Chinese are not able to think outside the box per se’ because the reference of all civil activity has been a history of box control by government, and compliance to stay (think) only within the approved box.  The lack of intellectual thought mapping needed for innovation is why China relies on intellectual theft of innovation created by others.

American culture specifically is based around freedom of thought and severe disdain of government telling us what to do; THAT freedom is necessary for innovation.  That freedom actually creates innovation.

Again, broadly speaking Chinese are better students in American schools and universities because the Chinese are culturally compliant.  They work well with academics and established formulas, and within established systems, but they cannot create the formula or system themselves.

♦ The Chinese Planning Authority skipped the economic cornerstone.  When China planned out their economic entry, they did so from a top-down perspective.  They immediately wanted to be manufacturers of stuff.  They saw their worker population as a strategic advantage, but they never put the source origination infrastructure into place in order to supply their manufacturing needs.   China has no infrastructure for raw material extraction or exploitation.

China relies on:  importing raw material, applying their economic skillset (manufacturing), and then exporting finished goods.  This is the basic economic structure of the Chinese economy.

See the flaw?

Cut off the raw material, and the China economy slows, contracts, and if nations react severely enough with export material boycotts the entire Chinese economy implodes.

Insert big flashy sign for: “One-Belt / One-Road” HERE

Again, we reference the earlier point: Economic strength is the ability of a nation to sustain itself.  [Think about an economy during conflict or war]  China cannot independently sustain itself, therefore China is necessarily vulnerable.  China cannot even feed itself.

China is dependent on Imports (raw materials) AND Exports (finished goods).

♦The 800lb Panda in the room is that China is arguably the least balanced economy in the modern world.  Hence, China has to take extraordinary measures to secure their supply chain.  This economic dependency is also why China has recently spent so much on military expansion etc., they must protect their vulnerable interests.

Everything important to the Chinese Economy surrounds their critical need to secure a strong global supply chain of raw material to import, and leveraged trade agreements for export.  China’s economy is deep (manufacturing), but China’s economy is also narrow.

China could have spent the time to create a broad-based economy, but the lack of early 1900’s foresight, in conjunction with their communist top-down totalitarian system and a massive population, led to central government decisions to subvert the bottom-up building-out and take short-cuts.  Their population controls only worsened their long term ability to ever broaden their economic model.

It takes a population of young avg-skilled workers to do the hard work of building a raw material infrastructure.  Mine workers, dredge builders, roads and railways, bridges and tunnels etc.  All of these require young strong bodies.   The Chinese cultural/population  decisions amid the economic builders precluded this proactive outlook; now they have an aging population and are incapable of doing it.

This is why China is now dependent on their position as an economic trade bully.  They must retain their supply chain: import raw materials – export finished goods, at all costs.

This inherent economic structure is a weakness China must continually address through policies toward other nations.  Hence, “One-Belt / One-Road” is essentially a ‘bully plan’ to ensure their supply chain and long-term economic viability.

This economic structure, and the reality of China’s dependency, also puts China at risk from the effects of global economic contraction.

♦U.S. President Donald Trump and the U.S. economic team understand this dynamic and fully understand the inherent needs of China.  When you are economically dependent, the ‘bully plan’ only works until you encounter a ‘stronger opponent’.   A stronger opponent is an economic opponent with a more broad-based stable economy, that’s us.

President Trump, Commerce Secretary Ross, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer, represent the first broad-based national team of economic negotiators who know how to leverage the inherent Chinese economic vulnerability.

National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro appears on Fox Business News to discuss the “reciprocity” proposals and the ongoing confrontation with China. Despite the honest examples provided, it is transparent from the delivery Navarro is attempting to calms the nerves of Wall Street.  “EC” Economically Correct, presentation – Watch:

Without apology CTH continues to state all opposition to President Trump finds the epicenter of motive behind the economic policy.  There are trillions at stake.

Yes, there are ideological differences, but do not doubt for a moment the existential threat is the core principle behind America-First economics.

Multinational corporations and global financial interests have more than a generation of effort invested within the modern trade and economic constructs that President Trump is challenging head-on.

Politicians do not construct legislation, K-Street lobbyists do. Hundreds of millions have been spent purchasing politicians as a sales force to protect those financial interests. Challenge their financial trade schemes and you are threatening the livelihood and financial systems that generate massive wealth for very powerful people.  Additionally, the downstream effect threatens the affluence of the professional political class.

That said, there are American interests who will benefit, it’s just not popular within the cocktail party circuit to admit it:

(Bloomberg)  China’s plan to counter U.S. import tariffs may throw global aluminum and steel traders into a tizzy, but the net result could be a boon for American primary-metal producers.

The retaliatory plan to slap tariffs on U.S. aluminum scrap and some steel products may boost American supplies, lowering raw-material prices, says Zaner Group LLC’s Peter Thomas. That could coax some metal producers to restart unused capacity in Rust Belt states if infrastructure spending picks up.

“In Indiana they’re going to be making a huge push to get things fired up,” Thomas, a Zaner senior vice president, said Friday by phone.

One aluminum scrap trader agrees with the premise, but he says the other side of the coin is that suppliers could be the biggest losers. Marvin Polikov, a vice president at aluminum scrap trader Metal Exchange in St. Louis, also says companies need a lot of time before they can, and probably would, restart unused refineries. (read more)

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross appears on Lou Dobbs show to discuss the ongoing trade initiatives against China and the issues of intellectual property theft.

.

Additionally, CNBC is reporting on possible retaliatory trade action by China in response:

CNBC – China’s commerce ministry proposed a list of 128 U.S. products as potential retaliation targets, according to a statement on its website posted Friday morning.

The U.S. goods, which had an import value of $3 billion in 2017, include wine, fresh fruit, dried fruit and nuts, steel pipes, modified ethanol, and ginseng, the ministry said. Those products could see a 15 percent duty, while a 25 percent tariff could be imposed on U.S. pork and recycled aluminum goods, according to the statement.

The statement did not go into greater detail. U.S. agricultural products, particularly soybeans, have been flagged as the biggest area of potential retaliation by Chinese President Xi Jinping’s administration.  (read more)

Wait, China bought out Smithfield Foods, the U.S. #1 pork producer, back in 2013.  So big panda is going to tax themselves…. priceless.

And, as we have mentioned, China purchases a tremendous amount of our steel and aluminum products for recycling into their own finished products.  A 25% tariff on U.S. aluminum recycles would mean increased aluminum remains available within the U.S. for our own manufacturing – at a lower price.  Another win.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross appears with Bloomberg Inc. to discuss the ongoing U.S. trade initiatives and the need for immediate and urgent trade reciprocity.

Within the discussion Secretary Ross talks about the current targeted tariff proposal, and why intellectual property theft by Chinese state-run companies poses a clear threat to U.S. economic growth and national security interests.

.

From the Office of the U.S.T.R. – Washington, DC – Today President Trump announced his decisions on the actions the Administration will take in response to China’s unfair trade practices covered in the USTR Section 301 investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer initiated the investigation in August 2017 at the direction of President Trump.

The President has instructed that the appropriate response to China’s harmful acts, policies and practices should include three separate actions.

1. Tariffs – The President has instructed the Trade Representative to publish a proposed list of products and any tariff increases within 15 days of today’s announcement.  After a period of notice and comment, the Trade Representative will publish a final list of products and tariff increases.
2. WTO dispute – The President has instructed the Trade Representative to pursue dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization (WTO) to address China’s discriminatory technology licensing practices.
3. Investment restrictions – The President has directed the Secretary of the Treasury to address concerns about investment in the United States directed or facilitated by China in industries or technologies deemed important to the United States.

“President Trump has made it clear we must insist on fair and reciprocal trade with China and strictly enforce our laws against unfair trade.  This requires taking effective action to confront China over its state-led efforts to force, strong-arm, and even steal U.S. technology and intellectual property,” said Ambassador Lighthizer.  “Years of talking about these problems with China has not worked.  The United States is committed to using all available tools to respond to China’s unfair, market-distorting behavior.  China’s unprecedented and unfair trade practices are a serious challenge not just to the United States, but to our allies and partners around the world.”

The Chinese government’s technology transfer and intellectual property policies are part of China’s stated intention of seizing economic leadership in advanced technology as set forth in its industrial plans, such as “Made in China 2025.”

Section 301 is a key enforcement tool that allows the United States to address a wide variety of unfair acts, policies, and practices of U.S. trading partners.  The investigation of China’s Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation addresses four categories of acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China that unfairly result in the transfer of technologies and intellectual property from U.S. companies to China.  These policies harm U.S. businesses and workers and threaten the long-term competitiveness of the United States.

USTR staff, with the assistance of dozens of experts from across the Administration, prepared a comprehensive report containing detailed findings.  The report is available on the USTR website.

The report supports the following conclusions:

1. China uses foreign ownership restrictions, including joint venture requirements, equity limitations, and other investment restrictions, to require or pressure technology transfer from U.S. companies to Chinese entities.  China also uses administrative review and licensing procedures to require or pressure technology transfer, which, inter alia, undermines the value of U.S. investments and technology and weakens the global competitiveness of U.S. firms.
2. China imposes substantial restrictions on, and intervenes in, U.S. firms’ investments and activities, including through restrictions on technology licensing terms.  These restrictions deprive U.S. technology owners of the ability to bargain and set market-based terms for technology transfer.  As a result, U.S. companies seeking to license technologies must do so on terms that unfairly favor Chinese recipients.
3. China directs and facilitates the systematic investment in, and acquisition of, U.S. companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting-edge technologies and intellectual property and to generate large-scale technology transfer in industries deemed important by Chinese government industrial plans.
4. China conducts and supports unauthorized intrusions into, and theft from, the computer networks of U.S. companies. These actions provide the Chinese government with unauthorized access to intellectual property, trade secrets, or confidential business information, including technical data, negotiating positions, and sensitive and proprietary internal business communications, and they also support China’s strategic development goals, including its science and technology advancement, military modernization, and economic development.

The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China likewise concluded in a report entitled “China Manufacturing 2025: Putting Industrial Policy Ahead of Market Forces” that there has been an “unprecedented wave of outbound investments” in recent years from China into firms in industries of relevance to Made in China 2025, and many of these investments have been in areas where foreign business is unable to make equivalent investments in China.

The USTR report also notes, “As the global economy has increased its dependence on information systems in recent years, cyber theft became one of China’s preferred methods of collecting commercial information because of its logistical advantages and plausible deniability.” The report goes on to conclude that “based on available information on China’s cyber intrusions, experts have concluded that China’s cyber intrusions and cyber theft align with its industrial policy goals.”

The full report can be viewed here.

A fact sheet can be viewed here.

President Trump has just announced the removal of HR McMaster as National Security Adviser.  He will be replaced with former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.

The National Security Council is a massive intelligence apparatus consisting of dozens of principals and hundreds of staff.  There has been a series of leaks from within the NSC over the past year. We suspected, there was a concerted effort to track down the leaker(s).

There is a similarity to White House staff leaks, under Bannon – prior to Kelly, and recent NSC leaks under McMaster.

Given the timing of the removal in relationship to another NSC leak about President Trump’s phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin; and knowing the content of that specific leak was isolated to a small circle that would include McMaster’s personal staff; it is not a stretch to connect the dots and surmise McMaster (et al) was an IC leaker.

In the first assembly of his team, outsider President-Elect Trump took the advice of DC and professional voices familiar with the apparatus of the swamp. [See Reince Priebus, Rex Tillerson, HR McMaster etc.]

It makes logical sense after President Trump gained increased familiarity with the systems, patterns, organizations and institutions therein, that he would replace positions with people he feels would be more comfortable executing his administrative policy agenda.

Additionally, the NatSec challenge has changed.  POTUS is now positioning to confront Iran directly and is about to engage in direct talks with North Korea.  [Each new batter faced requires new pitcher skills.]