Obama, Wen huddle in a side meeting at U.N.

[Nomenclature]

Obama, Wen huddle in a side meeting at U.N. - CNN.com

(CNN) -- The Chinese and American leaders held a bilateral meeting at the United Nations on Thursday and delivered remarks that highlighted their cooperation and the need for "frank" talk over differences.

"We have worked together on a whole range of issues," President Barack Obama said. "Obviously, one of the most important issues has been to deal with the financial crisis and the recession that traveled around the world over the last several years. In the G-20, our cooperation, I think, has been absolutely critical."

He said the countries have cooperated extensively on issues of nuclear nonproliferation and have had "very frank discussions and cooperated on issues of climate change."

"Obviously, we continue to have more work to do. On the economic front, although the world economy is now growing again, I think it's going to be very important for us to have frank discussions and continue to do more work cooperatively in order to achieve the type of balance and sustained economic growth that is so important and that we both signed up for in the context of the G-20 framework," he said.

Obama said it is key that the countries put their heads together to foster peace, stability and security. He said the "Strategic and Economic Dialogue that we've set up" is a proper forum for bilateral and multilateral talk.

"Premier Wen [Jiabao], I think, has exhibited extraordinary openness and cooperation with us as we try to strengthen the relationship between our two countries, a relationship that is based on cooperation, on mutual interest, on mutual respect," Obama said.

Wen said that "common interests far outweigh our differences" and that despite "disagreements of one kind or another between our two countries, the differences can be resolved."

Wen said he approached the meeting with Obama in a "candid and constructive attitude."

"Our two countries can have cooperation on a series of major international issues and regional hot-spot issues. We have cooperation on tackling the financial crisis and meeting the climate challenge. China and the United States have also embraced an even closer and bigger relationship in the fields of public finance, financial industry and economic cooperation and trade."

In a speech Wednesday night, Wen said that China will not bend to economic pressure from U.S. lawmakers, even as it further opens its markets to the world.

Wen covered topics such as the U.S. trade deficit with China and his country's controversial exchange rate policy in his speech to businesspeople. He is in New York for the annual General Assembly meetings at the United Nations.

China will continue reforming and opening its markets, Wen said, which it started in 1978 by officially ending decades of isolation. But U.S. lawmakers' demands for China to revalue its currency by more than 20 percent would bankrupt Chinese companies and lead to "major unrest" in his country, the premier said.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives considered a bill to allow the United States to retaliate against China's handling of its currency. Some trade leaders say Beijing has suppressed the yuan's value, giving its exporters an unfair advantage in world trade.

Wen initially struck an affable tone, beginning his remarks with a rare unscripted detour from his prepared statements. Wen referred to historical cooperation between Chinese and Americans, including references to five Chinese citizens who fought in the U.S. Civil War.

China and the United States have had a positive relationship despite "minor fluctuations," he said, apparently referring to differences over the U.S. trade deficit and currency policy.

The premier also went on the offensive, accusing the United States of policies that impede fair trade.

"China will continue to increase imports from the United States," he said. "Meanwhile, America should also recognize China's market economic status, relax export control against China and take concrete moves to promote free trade in a real sense."

Nice that both countries stroke a conciliatory tone.

A trade war is in neither China nor the U.S's interests, as U.S tariffs on Chinese good will simply move production to other developing countries and retaliatory tariffs from China will also disadvantage U.S producers against Japanese or European firms.

A maja problem with U.S is it often don't produce things Chinese want despite its overall positive image in China. Chinese admiration for the American way of life didn't help American companies selling products.

For example, while Chinese are fascinated by American suburbia, America can't pack up Levittown and ship it to China. Chinese also share with Americans this unhealthy obsession with big cars, urban road warriors in Beijing have the same boy scout mentality as their American (and Australian) counterparts so they'll always want to be prepared in their AWD SUVs even they're just picking up their children from kindergartens. But again, despite this Chinese affiliation for American car culture the U.S hasn't been able to benefits from China's SUV boom (which most benefited Japanese and European firms).

I think the trend has been pretty clear, countries with trade surplus with other countries tend to have trade surplus with China (Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc) and countries with trade deficits with other countries tend to also have trade deficits with China (U.S, India, etc).

 

[somebozo]

Ahhh...what nice treat of cold water for waking up india from its wet dream!

 

[CardSharp]

Obama, Wen huddle in a side meeting at U.N. - CNN.com



Nice that both countries stroke a conciliatory tone.

A trade war is in neither China nor the U.S's interests, as U.S tariffs on Chinese good will simply move production to other developing countries and retaliatory tariffs from China will also disadvantage U.S producers against Japanese or European firms.

A maja problem with U.S is it often don't produce things Chinese want despite its overall positive image in China. Chinese admiration for the American way of life didn't help American companies selling products.

For example, while Chinese are fascinated by American suburbia, America can't pack up Levittown and ship it to China. Chinese also share with Americans this unhealthy obsession with big cars, urban road warriors in Beijing have the same boy scout mentality as their American (and Australian) counterparts so they'll always want to be prepared in their AWD SUVs even they're just picking up their children from kindergartens. But again, despite this Chinese affiliation for American car culture the U.S hasn't been able to benefits from China's SUV boom (which most benefited Japanese and European firms).

I think the trend has been pretty clear, countries with trade surplus with other countries tend to have trade surplus with China (Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc) and countries with trade deficits with other countries tend to also have trade deficits with China (U.S, India, etc).

That's the major misconception in the US public. They think by weakening China's exports, US businesses will somehow pickup the slack, but HOW does that happen when America no longer makes what it can import from China. Manufacturing makes up a measly 14% of the American economy, if China drops the ball, do Americans think they can pick it up?

This whole currency thing is just playing off of the ignorance of the American public when it comes to basic economics.

 

[siegecrossbow]

That's the major misconception in the US public. They somehow think by weakening China's exports, US businesses will somehow pickup the slack, but HOW does that happen when America no longer makes what it can import from China. Manufacturing makes up a measly 14% of the American economy, if China drops the ball, do Americans think they can pick it up?

This whole currency thing is just playing off of the ignorance of the American public when it comes to basic economics.

I disagree. I think that making T-Shirts will offer great job opportunities for those who complain about Chinese "stealing their jobs" on the internet instead of getting and education.

 

[below_freezing]

Obama, Wen huddle in a side meeting at U.N. - CNN.com



Nice that both countries stroke a conciliatory tone.

A trade war is in neither China nor the U.S's interests, as U.S tariffs on Chinese good will simply move production to other developing countries and retaliatory tariffs from China will also disadvantage U.S producers against Japanese or European firms.

A maja problem with U.S is it often don't produce things Chinese want despite its overall positive image in China. Chinese admiration for the American way of life didn't help American companies selling products.

For example, while Chinese are fascinated by American suburbia, America can't pack up Levittown and ship it to China. Chinese also share with Americans this unhealthy obsession with big cars, urban road warriors in Beijing have the same boy scout mentality as their American (and Australian) counterparts so they'll always want to be prepared in their AWD SUVs even they're just picking up their children from kindergartens. But again, despite this Chinese affiliation for American car culture the U.S hasn't been able to benefits from China's SUV boom (which most benefited Japanese and European firms).

I think the trend has been pretty clear, countries with trade surplus with other countries tend to have trade surplus with China (Japan, South Korea, Germany, etc) and countries with trade deficits with other countries tend to also have trade deficits with China (U.S, India, etc).

Some more sane people are disgusted by american suburbs. i find them a highly inefficient and antisocial way to live. instead, increasing property prices so much that it becomes profitable for companies to make 30 square meter homes and pack them tightly in gigantic skyscrapers would surely increase efficiency and boost our prowess in civil engineering.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Some more sane people are disgusted by american suburbs. i find them a highly inefficient and antisocial way to live. instead, increasing property prices so much that it becomes profitable for companies to make 30 square meter homes and pack them tightly in gigantic skyscrapers would surely increase efficiency and boost our prowess in civil engineering.

I agree, building skyscrapers is more cost efficient. For every square foot of land, you can build upwards continuously, without having to buy any additional land.

That would save a lot of money, in terms of land cost, local infrastructure and transport.

 

[below_freezing]

also, i don't know about you, but from photos of US suburbs, have you noticed there's no one on the street? everyone just keeps to themselves. wouldn't you go crazy living like that?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

also, i don't know about you, but from photos of US suburbs, have you noticed there's no one on the street? everyone just keeps to themselves. wouldn't you go crazy living like that?

You're right, I noticed that as well.

I've taken vacations to America and Britain, and I was shocked to see that there were so few people on the streets.

I put that down to cultural differences and lower population density.

Housing in Chinese cities often comes down to skyscrapers, because they are more cost-effecient. Which results in a higher population density in urban areas.

 

[hecj]

Ahhh...what nice treat of cold water for waking up india from its wet dream!

India phobia!!!!!,nothing else

 

[su-47]

That's the major misconception in the US public. They somehow think by weakening China's exports, US businesses will somehow pickup the slack, but HOW does that happen when America no longer makes what it can import from China. Manufacturing makes up a measly 14% of the American economy, if China drops the ball, do Americans think they can pick it up?

This whole currency thing is just playing off of the ignorance of the American public when it comes to basic economics.

Obama can be quite a moron at times. He and his anti-outsourcing, anti-import attitude will just make USA less competitive. For example:

If company A has 100 000 employees. In order to be competitive, they might fire 20 000 employees and outsource some services and manufacturing to India/China. But by doing that, they are protecting the other 80 000. the company will be competitive and can run in the long run.

If they tried to keep everything 'in house' and keep the 100 000 jobs, they can have 100 000 jobs in the short run, but soon the company will start losing out due to cheaper goods and services from abroad, and the whole company can close down. and then its 100 000 jobs gone.

Do u think a company like GM can compete with the other auto manufacturers if they don't outsource?

 

[CardSharp]

Some more sane people are disgusted by american suburbs. i find them a highly inefficient and antisocial way to live. instead, increasing property prices so much that it becomes profitable for companies to make 30 square meter homes and pack them tightly in gigantic skyscrapers would surely increase efficiency and boost our prowess in civil engineering.

This is more true than you think. Many white families moved out of the city centre in the 1960's because they did not want to share it with poor black people and that's partially how the suburb movement started. Once it happened the condition in the city centre steadily degenerated as the residents became poorer and poorer until the financial districts and glitzy office building are ringed by a city centre full of poverty, drugs and crime, then the city centre is ringed by those who can afford to escape into the suburbs.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Obama can be quite a moron at times. He and his anti-outsourcing, anti-import attitude will just make USA less competitive. For example:

If company A has 100 000 employees. In order to be competitive, they might fire 20 000 employees and outsource some services and manufacturing to India/China. But by doing that, they are protecting the other 80 000. the company will be competitive and can run in the long run.

If they tried to keep everything 'in house' and keep the 100 000 jobs, they can have 100 000 jobs in the short run, but soon the company will start losing out due to cheaper goods and services from abroad, and the whole company can close down. and then its 100 000 jobs gone.

Do u think a company like GM can compete with the other auto manufacturers if they don't outsource?

Those who are the most verbal against imports and outsourcing will also be the first to complain once consumer product prices sky rockets after a hypothetical U.S. ban of Chinese goods.