w*********r
发帖数: 42116 | 1 China’s elite think Trump is winning and think China should give in the
short run
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1649e9a3-2882-3afc-976f-d49b5bc65580/ss_china%
E2%80%99s-elite-think-trump-is.html |
C**********e
发帖数: 23303 | |
f****o
发帖数: 196 | |
f****o
发帖数: 196 | |
s******r
发帖数: 5309 | |
f*******y
发帖数: 470 | 6 老将全是精英
【在 C**********e 的大作中提到】
: 哈哈
: 关键谁是中国的精英？自封的？
|
b********n
发帖数: 38600 | |
p********1
发帖数: 2785 | 8 这是什么破新闻，连个具体名字都不给，上来就精英如何如何。
【在 w*********r 的大作中提到】
: China’s elite think Trump is winning and think China should give in the
: short run
: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1649e9a3-2882-3afc-976f-d49b5bc65580/ss_china%
: E2%80%99s-elite-think-trump-is.html
|
k**i
发帖数: 10191 | |
a********r
发帖数: 4013 | 10 鳖国内现在唱衰的文章流传得还真不少，而且不删，可以理解为震慑屁民用的 |
|
|
M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 11 这个战场基本没赢的可能
【在 w*********r 的大作中提到】
: China’s elite think Trump is winning and think China should give in the
: short run
: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1649e9a3-2882-3afc-976f-d49b5bc65580/ss_china%
: E2%80%99s-elite-think-trump-is.html
|
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 12 操，真是滑天下之大鸡， 中国被西方国家封锁了多长时间， 到现在还军事封锁， 这点
贸易战毛毛雨， 借贸易战把以前不好意思做的事情都作了， 也不虚此行
【在 w*********r 的大作中提到】
: China’s elite think Trump is winning and think China should give in the
: short run
: https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/1649e9a3-2882-3afc-976f-d49b5bc65580/ss_china%
: E2%80%99s-elite-think-trump-is.html
|
M******a
发帖数: 6723 | 13 万万不能啊！！
要是屈服了，美国又该做“天下太平”的美梦了。
坚持打下去，直到一方彻底无条件投降，答应对方一切条件为止。 |
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 14 中美贸易战，你们巴子首当其冲， 其次是美倭棒在华企业
【在 M******a 的大作中提到】
: 万万不能啊！！
: 要是屈服了，美国又该做“天下太平”的美梦了。
: 坚持打下去，直到一方彻底无条件投降，答应对方一切条件为止。
|
M******a
发帖数: 6723 | 15 我们盼中国制裁美倭棒在华企业，盼得花儿都谢了。
最好是把这些企业的全部管理层一体枪毙，那才叫一个好！！
【在 s*****n 的大作中提到】
: 中美贸易战，你们巴子首当其冲， 其次是美倭棒在华企业
|
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 16 不用中国制裁， 美国加的关税，多数是倭巴美棒企业
【在 M******a 的大作中提到】
: 我们盼中国制裁美倭棒在华企业，盼得花儿都谢了。
: 最好是把这些企业的全部管理层一体枪毙，那才叫一个好！！
|
s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 17 看美国精英怎么说
We’re going to lose this trade war
By Robert J. Samuelson
If we are to have a “trade war” with China, it would be best to win it. We
should be better off after the fighting. Unfortunately, the chances of this
happening seem slim to none, because President Trump’s plan of attack
suggests that everyone — us and them — will lose.
Interestingly, there’s broad agreement over some of our war goals. Here’s
economist Peter Navarro, director of the White House National Trade Council,
writing in the Wall Street Journal:
“The Chinese government . . . [has] audacious plans to dominate
emerging technology industries. Many of these targeted sectors, such as
artificial intelligence and robotics, have clear implications for defense.
China seeks to achieve its goal of economic and military domination in part
by acquiring the best American technology and intellectual property.”
Hardly anyone doubts that China is on the hunt for advanced technologies by
“legal means if possible, and illegal means, if necessary,” as Michael
Wessel of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a
congressional watchdog agency, recently said.
In his Wall Street Journal piece, Navarro argued that “Trump’s new tariffs
will provide a critical shield against this aggression.”
He’s wrong. Indeed, focusing on reducing the global U.S. trade deficit —
more than $500 billion in 2017 — will make it much harder to impede China’
s ability to acquire advanced technologies on favorable terms.
2:23
Trump: 'We can no longer be the stupid country'
President Trump said on June 19 that Canada and Mexico "do nothing for us,"
and make "unbelievable amounts of money" from trade and drugs. (Photo:
MANDEL NGAN/The Washington Post)
As Brookings Institution economist David Dollar pointed out, the United
States cannot accomplish this policing alone. Frustrated by U.S.
technological restrictions, China could turn to other advanced countries —
Japan, Germany, Canada, South Korea, France — for similar technologies. We
do not hold a monopoly on advanced technologies. To be effective, we need a
global coalition that will cooperate in curbing abuses. (Most routine
technologies, it’s worth noting, should be available on normal commercial
terms.)
The trouble is that Trump’s bombastic assaults against our traditional
trading partners — and military allies — virtually guarantee that the
essential cooperation will be difficult, if not impossible, to attain. “
Trump’s focus on the trade deficit is causing specific harms to American
national security, including the distortion of U.S. [foreign] alliance
relationships and loss of leverage against China,” wrote Derek Scissors of
the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Consider how. Trump has suggested imposing a 25 percent tariff on imported
cars, trucks, sport utility vehicles and parts. This might reduce the trade
deficit (in 2017, these U.S. imports totaled $324 billion from all countries
, Scissors reported), but only because higher-priced vehicles would reduce
consumer demand and vehicle production. Other countries would retaliate,
finds a study from the Peterson Institute. The estimated U.S. job loss would
total 624,000 over one to three years.
The resulting antagonisms among our allies — already evident in their
reaction to Trump’s first steps to curb trade deficits — would intensify.
The same countries that have advanced technologies (Japan, Germany, Canada
and South Korea) are also auto exporters. “This is doing long-term damage.
Trump is upending U.S. trade policy since World War II — one of the most
successful policies in history,” said economist Mark Zandi of Moody’s
Analytics.
The reality is that Trump’s obsession with the trade deficit is misplaced.
Since 1976, the United States has continuously run trade deficits on goods
and services. If the United States were a normal country and the dollar a
normal currency, a correction would have occurred long ago. The dollar would
have dropped on foreign exchange markets, making U.S. exports cheaper and U
.S. imports more expensive. Our trade would have swung toward balance or
surplus.
1:06
Trump threatens China with tariffs on $200 billion in products
President Trump escalated his trade war with China on June 18, and
threatened to put in place tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. (
Reuters)
But the United States is not any-old-country, and the dollar is not any-old-
currency. It continues as the most important global money, used to settle
trade transactions and make cross-border investments. This extra demand for
dollars props up its exchange rate. This makes U.S. exports costlier and
imports cheaper. Deficits ensue.
Just what technology controls the United States should adopt to screen
transactions with China isn’t clear or easy. The ultimate outcome is likely
to be some combination of added powers for the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States, which oversees foreign investment here, and
export controls, which regulate sales of technology abroad, said Martin
Chorzempa of the Peterson Institute.
But whatever Congress and Trump do won’t be effective unless it’s matched
by other major trading countries. Trump either doesn’t realize this or
doesn’t care. He’s infuriating the very countries whose support he
desperately needs. His policies are more than misguided; they’re backward. |
M******a
发帖数: 6723 | 18 这样给自己台阶下，很丢脸的。
【在 s*****n 的大作中提到】
: 不用中国制裁， 美国加的关税，多数是倭巴美棒企业
|
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 19 你们巴子才要台阶， 自己查美国的加税名单， 看看都是哪些企业
【在 M******a 的大作中提到】
: 这样给自己台阶下，很丢脸的。
|
M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 20 瞄一下这篇文章 就知道是一篇过时文章。
美国和欧盟的协议已经将这篇文章前提作废
We
this
s
Council,
【在 s******r 的大作中提到】
: 看美国精英怎么说
: We’re going to lose this trade war
: By Robert J. Samuelson
: If we are to have a “trade war” with China, it would be best to win it. We
: should be better off after the fighting. Unfortunately, the chances of this
: happening seem slim to none, because President Trump’s plan of attack
: suggests that everyone — us and them — will lose.
: Interestingly, there’s broad agreement over some of our war goals. Here’s
: economist Peter Navarro, director of the White House National Trade Council,
: writing in the Wall Street Journal:
|
|
|
m**********s
发帖数: 518 | |
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 22 傻笔才拿欧盟的“协议”当真， 美国评论员都说了， 这个协议是暂停键， 过几个星期
大嘴疮突然决定对外国车加税25%, 一切才刚刚开始
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 瞄一下这篇文章 就知道是一篇过时文章。
: 美国和欧盟的协议已经将这篇文章前提作废
:
: We
: this
: s
: Council,
|
M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 23 美国和欧盟的协议是除汽车工业以外零关税 本来就不包括汽车
星期
【在 s*****n 的大作中提到】
: 傻笔才拿欧盟的“协议”当真， 美国评论员都说了， 这个协议是暂停键， 过几个星期
: 大嘴疮突然决定对外国车加税25%, 一切才刚刚开始
|
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 24 马科龙早就跳出来了， 那个傻笔欧盟主席屁都不是
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 美国和欧盟的协议是除汽车工业以外零关税 本来就不包括汽车
:
: 星期
|
s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 25 欧盟在玩拖延战术等中期选举疮破被弹劾，上这种当的全是没脑子的货色。
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 瞄一下这篇文章 就知道是一篇过时文章。
: 美国和欧盟的协议已经将这篇文章前提作废
:
: We
: this
: s
: Council,
|
M*********d
发帖数: 1 | 26 我也觉得是拖延来一起对付中国 结束后继续狗咬狗
这对中国有什么帮助吗？
【在 s******r 的大作中提到】
: 欧盟在玩拖延战术等中期选举疮破被弹劾，上这种当的全是没脑子的货色。
|
s*****n
发帖数: 1998 | 27 对中国的影响力， 贸易战远远不如制裁， 中国能抗得住制裁， 抗不住贸易战？ 这个
贸易战，如果美国有决心， 完全可以打十年
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 我也觉得是拖延来一起对付中国 结束后继续狗咬狗
: 这对中国有什么帮助吗？
|
s******r
发帖数: 5309 | 28 欧盟在美中贸易战里是最大赢家，有病才会对付中国。
【在 M*********d 的大作中提到】
: 我也觉得是拖延来一起对付中国 结束后继续狗咬狗
: 这对中国有什么帮助吗？
|
