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.]

This video highlights the insane naivete’ of ideological democrats who are willing to give away U.S. trade and manufacturing jobs because they refuse to understand economics and history.

Senator Maria Cantwell is from Washington State, home of Boeing Corp.  The leading aerospace company already acquiesced to Chinese demands within a manufacturing/trade agreement for production in China requiring Boeing to give-up their technology. In this video, Cantwell is playing the role of Jeb Bush. First, WATCH:

Apparently Senator Cantwell doesn’t even know that Boeing, her state’s largest employer, is already bound to the agreement with China.

Many people may remember the specific example of Boeing, China and aerospace came up in a presidential primary debate between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. It was one of the most eye-opening debate contrasts during the 2016 GOP primary.

During the January 2016 South Carolina debate, and in response to Trump pointing out a necessary shift in trade position (a shift to put American interests first – a shift to stop the dependency on cheap import goods – a shift to use China’s dependency on access to our market to OUR advantage), Jeb Bush came back with an example of Boeing manufacturing.

2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump, responded to Jeb’s Boeing example, and pointed out China is forcing Boeing to open a manufacturing plant in China. As would be typical from a candidate who is unfamiliar and poorly briefed on the issue, candidate Jeb Bush looked back incredulously and said:

“C’mon man”…

There we saw it.

Right there was the disconnect.

However, almost everyone missed it.

There, in that exact moment, was the spotlight upon all that is wrong with a professional political class; globalists dependent on Wall Street best interest for their talking points.

Donald Trump was 100% correct.

But the issue is bigger.

Not only is China demanding Boeing open a plant in China, the intent of such a plant provided an opportunity to explain why candidate Trump, now President Trump, and his America-First MAGAnomic approach, is vitally important.

China refused to trade with (buy) Boeing products if the company did not move their manufacturing to China.  Why?  It was not about putting Chinese people to work; their motive was all about China importing Boeing’s research and development (Boeing’s production secrets) into their country so they can learn, steal and begin to manufacture their own airliners.

This is just how China works.

In time, Comac, a state-owned, Shanghai-based aerospace company will then use the production secrets they have stolen, produce their own airliners, kick out Boeing, undercut the aerospace market, and sell cheaper manufactured airplanes to the global economy.

Boeing, the great American company that Senator Maria Cantwell thinks they are, becomes yet another notch on the Asian market belt.

All of those Boeing workers, those high-wage industrial skill jobs that support the American middle class, yeah – those jobs get lost. And the cycle continues.

Of course Wall Street will be invested in the cheaper Chinese aerospace manufacturing company Comac, as it emerges as a manufacturing power.

This reality within this story is a peek into the future of the fundamental disconnect between Wall Street (grows again) and Main Street (lost jobs/wages). The reality within this example is exactly what has taken place over the past three decades.

Wall Street entities like Goldman Sachs will be fine. DC purchased politicians will be ok given the affluence they have accumulated by selling out the American worker.

Republican and Democrat leadership will be fine – it’s middle America who suffers.

The economic consequence, yet again, creates disparity between those insulated by Wall Street and the rest of the U.S. This is how our current oligarchy is growing out of control.

The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive.

Elite financial interests, including those within Washington DC, gain wealth and power, the U.S. workforce is reduced to servitude, “service”, of their affluent needs.

The destruction of the U.S. industrial and manufacturing base is EXACTLY WHY the wealth gap has exploded in the past 30 years.

And so they, as professional politicians, will propose solutions – their solutions. However, their solutions are actually the preferred solutions of their campaign contributors, ie. Wall Street. The same Wall Street that funds lobbyists, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to set the economic legislative priorities of congress.

You get cheap Asian imported durable goods.  Meanwhile the non-import market, your visit to the grocery store, food, energy etc. sees prices increasing because the domestic raw material within the food sector is part of the trade agreement.  Harvests are exported; domestic prices on consumable goods increase.  This is exactly what happens when multinational entities control the trade outcomes and the American economy becomes a service economy.

In 1984 a name brand polo shirt would cost around $45, a really good 26″ TV around $600 to $1,000, a decent couch $1500, and a pair of name brand sneakers around $100. However, eggs (.49), milk ($1.79 gal), and store bread (2 loaves for $1).

Electric bill $100, water bill $20, phone bill $50.

In 2016 an imported name brand polo costs around $20, a really good 42″ TV $300 to $400, a couch for $500 and a pair of sneakers $50 – All imported, all Asian, all about half of of what they cost in 1984.

However, eggs ($1.99), Milk ($3.99+), and store bread ($2+ each). All domestic products and all double or triple 1984. Electric bill $250, Water bill $100, phone bill $100+. Again domestic consumables, again double, triple or even more.

We consume and spend more on domestic goods such as food, energy, fuel, than we do purchasing imported durable goods. As a consequence, depending on lifestyle, the net out-of-pocket is essentially the same to a little more.

However, the income opportunity, the jobs, the good paying jobs, well, those are gone because the durables are no longer part of the domestic production.

…The road to a “service-driven economy” is paved with a great disparity between financial classes. The wealth gap is directly related to the inability of the middle-class to thrive…

To keep the under-employed pitchforks at bay, government policy (now directed by Wall Street globalists and corporations) subsidized the income gap.  That’s why EBT, WIC, SNAP and food stamp assistance over the past two decades was necessarily increasing.  Congress has to satiate the masses to hide the ruse (bigger problem).

The sheeple masses dropped the pitchforks, but economic independence turns to dependence. This is now a strategic retention policy of democrats. With government policy adjusted accordingly – deficits necessarily explode.  Stopping those deficits would require an actual budget.  There hasn’t been a federal budget, passed under regular order since 2007….  “Omnibus”… Sound familiar?

Yes, that’s the BIGGER picture reasoning behind the UniParty “Omnibus” approach.

Yes, under Donald Trump’s MAGAnomic proposals the cost of imported “durable” goods might just increase.   Until they start manufacturing in the U.S. your iPhone might cost $800 instead of $600.  However, the North Carolina apparel, clothing and furniture manufacturing market would/will have an opportunity to revitalize – and with it, jobs, jobs, jobs…

Yes, when Main Street economic principles are applied Wall Street will initially lose. There’s no way for this not to happen. Most of Wall Street is built on the Multinational platform of economic globalism. Weaken the grip of the multinational corporations and financial interests on the U.S. economy and Wall Street will drop… this is not difficult to predict. This is also necessary.

Yes, there’s going to be a period of “pain” per se’ as U.S. manufacturing attempts to find its footing again and begins to restart. However, in the longer term, it’s a shift from “dependency” to “independence”.  This is critical because one of the lesser discussed aspects of a trade deficit is the statement it makes about the competitiveness of the U.S. economy itself.

By purchasing goods overseas for a long enough period of time, U.S. companies lose the expertise, and the factories needed to make those products disappear. [Just try finding a pair of shoes made in America] As the United States loses competitiveness, we  outsource even more jobs, and the overall standard of living declines.

Those who were fully matriculated independent adults prior to 1984 know exactly what needs to be done. Heck, freedom is dependent upon it.

Meanwhile, Ben Shapiro, an insufferable mouthpiece for the GOPe Wall Street corporate community, was born in 1984 and only views the world -and trade therein- through the prism of how much his next iPhone costs.   These dolts are willing to consign themselves to a modern American society that looks exactly like THIS:

See the problem?

♦ On Social Security – Unlike many politicians President Donald Trump is NOT calling for rapid or wholesale changes to the current Social Security program; and there’s a very good reason why he’s the only candidate not proposing wholesale changes.  Instead of accepting a limited worldview based on a singular economic pie controlled by Wall Street, President Trump is looking to make hundreds more more economic pies.

President Trump does not consider these programs as “entitlements”, he considers them reasonable promises made in exchange for effort.  The American people pay into them, and the federal government has an obligation to fulfill the promises made upon collection of social security taxes.  To fully understand how Donald Trump views the solvency of Social Security, we must again understand MAGAnomics and and how the essential underpinning is growth; real and measurable GDP growth.

The issue with Social Security, as viewed by Trump, is more of an issue with receipts and expenditures. If the aggregate U.S. economy is growing by a factor larger than the distribution needed to fulfill its entitlement obligations then no wholesale change on expenditure is needed.  The focus needs to be on continued and successful economic growth.

What you will find in all of Donald Trump’s positions, is a paradigm shift he necessarily understands must take place in order to accomplish the long-term goals for the U.S. citizen as it relates to “entitlements” or “structural benefits”.

All other politicians begin their policy proposals with a fundamentally divergent perception of the U.S. economy. They are working with, and retaining the outlook of, a U.S. economy based on “services”; a service-based economic model pushed by Wall Street lobbyists who fund the politicians.

While this economic path has been created by decades old U.S. policy, and is ultimately the only historical economic path now taught in school, Trump intends to change the course entirely.

Because so many shifts -policy nudges- have taken place in the past several decades, few academics and even fewer MSM observers, are able to understand how to get off this path and chart a better course.

President Trump is proposing less dependence on foreign companies for cheap goods, (the cornerstone of a service economy) and a return to a more balanced U.S. larger economic model where the manufacturing and production base can be re-established and competitive based on American entrepreneurship and innovation.

The key words in the prior statement are “dependence” and “balanced”.  When a nation has an industrial manufacturing balance within the GDP there is far less dependence on the economic activity in global markets.  In essence the U.S. can sustain itself, absorb global economic fluctuations and expand itself or contract itself depending on the free market.

When there is no balance, there is no longer a free market.  The free market is sacrificed in favor of dependency, whether it’s foreign oil or foreign manufacturing, the dependency outcome is essentially the same.  Without balance there is an inherent loss of economic independence, and a consequential increase in economic risk.

No other economy in the world innovates like the U.S.A.  Donald Trump sees this as a key advantage across all industry – including manufacturing and technology.

The benefit of cheap overseas labor, which is considered a global market disadvantage for the U.S., is offset by utilizing innovation, automation and energy independence.

The third highest variable cost of goods beyond raw materials first, labor second, is energy. That’s why President Trump unleashed the U.S. energy sector and simultaneously reset the tax base for U.S. corporations.  The manufacturing price of any given U.S. product will allow for global trade competition even with higher U.S. wage prices.

We have a strategic advantage with raw manufacturing materials such as: iron ore, coal, steel, precious metals and vast mineral assets which are needed in most new modern era manufacturing.  President Trump smartly said: stop selling these valuable national assets to countries we compete against – they belong to the American people, they should be used for the benefit of American citizens. Period.

EXAMPLE: Currently China buys and recycles our heavy (steel) and light (aluminum) metal products (for pennies on the original manufacturing dollar) and then uses those metals to reproduce manufactured goods for sale back to the U.S. China does the same thing with raw food products (harvests and proteins).

President Trump says “no-more”.  We should do the manufacturing ourselves with the utilization of our own resources; and we use the leverage from any sales of these raw materials in our international trade agreements.

When you combine FULL resource development (in a modern era) with with the removal of over-burdensome regulatory and compliance systems, necessarily filled with enormous bureaucratic costs, we can lower the cost of production and be globally competitive. In essence, Trump changes the economic paradigm, and we no longer become a dependent nation relying on a service driven economy.

The cornerstone to the success of this economic turnaround is the keen capability of the U.S. worker to innovate on their own platforms. Americans, more than any country in the world, just know how to get things accomplished. Independence and self-sufficiency is part of the DNA of the larger American workforce.

In addition, an unquantifiable benefit comes from investment, where the smart money play -to get increased return on investment- becomes putting capital INTO the U.S. economy; investing in U.S. companies instead of purchasing foreign investments.

With all of the above opportunities in mind, this is how we get on the pathway to rebuilding our national infrastructure. The demand for labor increases, and as a consequence so too does the U.S. wage rate which has been stagnant (or non-existent) for the past three decades.

As the wage rate increases, and as the economy expands, the governmental dependency model is reshaped and simultaneously receipts to the U.S. treasury improve.

More money into the U.S Treasury and less dependence on welfare/social service programs have a combined exponential impact. You gain a dollar, and have no need to spend a dollar – the saved sum is doubled. That is how the SSI and safety net programs are saved under President Trump.  When we elevate our economic thinking we begin to see that all of the “entitlements” or “budget busting” expenditures become more affordable with an economy that is fully functional.

As the GDP of the U.S. expands, so does our ability to meet the growing need of the retiring U.S. worker. We stop thinking about how to best divide a limited economic pie, and begin thinking about how many more economic pies we can create.

Simply put, this is the process to…. Make America Great Again.