Trump threatens China with further $300 billion of tariffs

[The wheel of time]

Grow up,boy

ran out of arguments kiddo?

 

[Surya 1]

Well done Trump. CHina earned money from US and by using the same, it wants to challenge US. It is the best way to decapitate china economically rather than fighting China with military.

 

[Dungeness]

Don't know why Indians are so excited. Your gloat won't last very long, enjoy while you can.

 

[Rizwan Alam]

China is playing really well.. as long as Chinese feel they are milking US, there is no need to take harsh measures, after all these tariffs, China is still doing better than US in this trade war. Chinese will reply when there will be a need of it.

 

[powastick]

No more negotiation till 2035. This is waste of time.

 

[The wheel of time]

Well done Trump. CHina earned money from US and by using the same, it wants to challenge US. It is the best way to decapitate china economically rather than fighting China with military.

Thats right, Trump stood by his guns lets hope Modi will too. Time to act against our enemy china is now. I am up for 500% anti dumping duty on chinese goods.

 

[Surya 1]

Thats right, Trump stood by his guns lets hope Modi will too. Time to act against our enemy china is now. I am up for 500% anti dumping duty on chinese goods.

Trade deficit with CHina reduced by 12 bn USD last year. It shall come to a very acceptable figure in next 3-4 years to come.

 

[The wheel of time]

Trade deficit with CHina reduced by 12 bn USD last year. It shall come to a very acceptable figure in next 3-4 years to come.

That alright but I want 0 trade with china and pakistan.

 

[JSCh]

Notice the date.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1125069836088950784

 

[Surya 1]

That alright but I want 0 trade with china and pakistan.

But if we do not export tamatar to Pakistan, they will nuke us. One Pakistan journalist has already given the warning.

 

[Dungeness]

Notice the date.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1125069836088950784

This guy is lying through his teeth. The job number on Friday will give him a middle finger.

 

[艹艹艹]

 

[Broccoli]

China is in worse position than many in here wants to admit.

 

[Dungeness]

China is in worse position than many in here wants to admit.

Nothing new. They have been talking about the same shit for the past 20 years. You guys just don't know what Chinese are made out of, and very likely you guys still haven't figured out how China would even become 5 times size of yours. With this mentality, Indian will remain the way it has always been, a tier-2 country.

The good news is your enemy China is getting hit in a fight between Titans, the bad news is India is not cashing in from China's wounds.

 

[Mista]

China is in worse position than many in here wants to admit.

Nothing new. They have been talking about the same shit for the past 20 years. You guys just don't know what Chinese are made out of, and very likely you guys still haven't figured out how China would even become 5 times size of yours. With this mentality, Indian will remain the way it has always been, a tier-2 country.

The good news is your enemy China is getting hit in a fight between Titans, the bad news is India is not cashing in from China's wounds.

In economic principles I agree with Paul Krugman, but in the real world things are not so straightforward because there are many other factors at play.

You know, he has the same view of Singapore in the early 1990s. Over-investment and low total factor productivity growth. And he had a debate with Lee Kuan Yew on the issue back then.

Back in 1994, Krugman similarly assessed the Singapore economy. “…Singapore is an economic twin of the growth of Stalin’s Soviet Union,” he wrote in Foreign Affairs (November/December, The Myth of Asia’s Miracle). In 1994, remember, the Soviet Union shone chiefly as a massively failed economic experiment. Krugman simultaneously offered duplicate reasoning on the other fast growing Asian economies, Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea. The Krugman argument, nearly a generation ago, on the Asian Tigers closely parallels his current reasoning on China. They had expended or were on the verge of consuming their entire available capital and labor resources, he contended, and lacked any signs of future productivity improvement. He wrote that they had already achieved most of their potential, and for Singapore, he wondered only how fast it would fall.

When Stanford University economist Paul Krugman encountered Singapore's Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew a few months ago at a meeting of J.P. Morgan & Co.'s advisers, they wasted little time on pleasantries. As both men recall it, Mr. Lee launched straight into a decidedly mixed assessment of Mr. Krugman's pessimistic views on growth prospects for Asia, and especially Singapore.

While the conversation didn't change Mr. Krugman's outlook, he came away from it thinking that Mr. Lee is "more technically proficient in being able to use the jargon of economics than any world leader I've encountered." Yet the remarkable thing about the incident is not the Singaporean leader's command of economic arcana. It's his familiarity with the views of this 42-year-old American economist, who until a year ago was relatively little known in the region. Mr. Krugman may not have won Asia over to his theories, but he has gotten its attention.

Economic Growth = Increases in Labor + Increases in Capital + Total Factor Productivity

The rationale for each of the three contributors to growth is straightforward: Labor: The more people who work and the more skills they possess, the more an economy can produce. Capital: The more tools workers have, the more they can produce. (This is called "labor productivity," and it's how most people think of productivity -- a construction crew can dig up more concrete in an hour with three jackhammers than with only one.) Total factor productivity: Using capital and labor more efficiently increases output, too. In fact, this variable, which includes organizing work more cleverly and making technological improvements and innovations, may be the most important and sustainable source of economic growth.

The difference between Mr. Krugman and those who reject growth accounting as a tool boils down to this: Mr. Krugman believes in what one of his colleagues, Alwyn Young, calls "the tyranny of numbers," while his critics believe in the evidence of their senses as they travel around the region. "I have been visiting Singapore for 15 years, and I don't recognize it" in Mr. Krugman's essay, Mr. Mushkat of Lehman Brothers declares.

As Mr. Mushkat sees it, Mr. Krugman's thesis is "an argument only an economist could make." Economics, especially in the U.S., has become a "very mechanistic science," taught without regard for history, geography or common sense, he complains.

A variation on this argument focuses on Singapore's high level of investment in airports, roads, housing and other social infrastructure, which "may be dragging down today's productivity-growth figures, even while raising the long-term potential of the economy," notes Jim Rohwer, chief economist for Asia at CS First Boston, in a new book entitled "Asia Rising."

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/MoneyInvesting/reference/a-krugma.html

History has proven who's right. Singapore continued to grow relatively fast compared to other developed economies, and went on to surpass the UK and US in real GDP per capita by accumulating capital.

But of course. Singapore's growth model may not be replicated in China due to the difference in size.