goldman777:
Donald Trump president of America is aware that by now the world doesn't want to go to war because nobody wants death and casualties associated with world war 2 anymore this days.a new modern deadlier kind of war has evolved destroying a country economically without shooting a single bullet or missile and crippling it America is spearheading this new type of warfare and we are bound to see economic casualties with the two economic super giants trade wars China and the USA,along with Russia the Koreans and the rest of the world.lets see how world war 3themed the trade economic wars end

goldman777:
Donald Trump president of America is aware that by now the world doesn't want to go to war because nobody wants death and casualties associated with world war 2 anymore this days.a new modern deadlier kind of war has evolved destroying a country economically without shooting a single bullet or missile and crippling it America is spearheading this new type of warfare and we are bound to see economic casualties with the two economic super giants trade wars China and the USA,along with Russia the Koreans and the rest of the world.lets see how world war 3themed the trade economic wars end

IdeyFindWife:

Don't let the conspiracy theorists fool you!
The ripples and shockwaves of economic/trade actions will be felt almost all over but the effects will dissipate with time
Funny, China seems positioned to lose more as it stands on automobiles, high end gadgets tech eQ, utility wears etc.
The markets are not infinitely elastic so equilibrium will be reached sooner or later.

Kophschmerzen:



America stand to lose more, because the Chinese electronics components are from various countries. So the risk will be equally shared among those countries. Chinese are targeting traditional goods we produce here like pork, soybeans and other agrarian stuffs.

Plus there are shit loads of alternative for those goods, Argentina and Brazil produce sh1tload of agrarian stuffs. Hurting Chinese goods will definitely send lot of American producers under e.g apple and other Chinese manufacturing and American selling folks here.

IdeyFindWife:

Yeah, that's true and let's just hope it doesn't shed heavier loads on poorer economies on the African continent with their heavy imports-based economies.

Kophschmerzen:



America stand to lose more, because the Chinese electronics components are from various countries. So the risk will be equally shared among those countries. Chinese are targeting traditional goods we produce here like pork, soybeans and other agrarian stuffs.

Plus there are shit loads of alternative for those goods, Argentina and Brazil produce sh1tload of agrarian stuffs. Hurting Chinese goods will definitely send lot of American producers under e.g apple and other Chinese manufacturing and American selling folks here.

Trade statistics are highly problematic—we tend to fixate on the hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S deficits, when in fact a large percentage of that is U.S. companies assembling items nominally “made in China” and then selling them in America. The iPhone is perhaps the best example. It is treated as a U.S. import from China at its announced import price of more than $200, but as many economists have shown, only a fraction of that goes to China. The rest is distributed among global suppliers and Apple itself, but arcane “country of origin rules” make it seem otherwise. That is true for almost all products others than commodities and agricultural goods. Our current trade numbers reflect supply chains of the 1950s but how goods are actually made in the 21st century.

That is in part why China’s possible tariffs against U.S. commodities could hurt more than U.S. tariffs against Chinese goods: Our pork and soybeans are basically all-American, whereas a goodly portion of Chinese imports have parts from countries around the world sourced by American companies domiciled in the U.S.

The final problem with the tariffs is that China is the fastest-growing export market for American goods and perhaps the largest potential market for U.S. services. Those services include Chinese tourism to the United States and Chinese students studying here, whose economic ripple effects are surely under-reported (a Chinese student paying rent shows up in no trade number, for instance). And those numbers don’t include China investing tens of billions in the U.S. to buy companies with its surplus dollars, nor its trillion-dollar investment in U.S. bonds.

Kophschmerzen:



America stand to lose more, because the Chinese electronics components are from various countries. So the risk will be equally shared among those countries. Chinese are targeting traditional goods we produce here like pork, soybeans and other agrarian stuffs.

Plus there are shit loads of alternative for those goods, Argentina and Brazil produce sh1tload of agrarian stuffs. Hurting Chinese goods will definitely send lot of American producers under e.g apple and other Chinese manufacturing and American selling folks here.

Trade statistics are highly problematic—we tend to fixate on the hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S deficits, when in fact a large percentage of that is U.S. companies assembling items nominally “made in China” and then selling them in America. The iPhone is perhaps the best example. It is treated as a U.S. import from China at its announced import price of more than $200, but as many economists have shown, only a fraction of that goes to China. The rest is distributed among global suppliers and Apple itself, but arcane “country of origin rules” make it seem otherwise. That is true for almost all products others than commodities and agricultural goods. Our current trade numbers reflect supply chains of the 1950s but how goods are actually made in the 21st century.

That is in part why China’s possible tariffs against U.S. commodities could hurt more than U.S. tariffs against Chinese goods: Our pork and soybeans are basically all-American, whereas a goodly portion of Chinese imports have parts from countries around the world sourced by American companies domiciled in the U.S.

The final problem with the tariffs is that China is the fastest-growing export market for American goods and perhaps the largest potential market for U.S. services. Those services include Chinese tourism to the United States and Chinese students studying here, whose economic ripple effects are surely under-reported (a Chinese student paying rent shows up in no trade number, for instance). And those numbers don’t include China investing tens of billions in the U.S. to buy companies with its surplus dollars, nor its trillion-dollar
investment in U.S. bonds.

goldman777:
Trump is swimming in a river leading down a bottomless waterfall