US-China Trade at Global Crossroads
Economics / Global Economy Nov 10, 2017 - 09:28 AM GMTBy: Dan_Steinbock
	 
	
   Despite “America First” policies, President  Trump’s economic agenda needs expanding trade with China.
Despite “America First” policies, President  Trump’s economic agenda needs expanding trade with China.
President Donald Trump  began his grueling 12-day Asia tour amid US Special Counsel’s first indictments,  which cast a shadow over the White House’s future.
 
Nevertheless, Trump and President Xi Jinping were able to sign deals worth US$253 billion, which makes the visit to China historic in terms of the value of business agreements struck.
If anything, the visit demonstrates that, despite an insular foreign policy, Trump’s economic objectives cannot be executed without expanding trade with China.
Rapid trade expansion              
  In 2016, US-China trade  amounted to $579 billion, while Trump’s singular focus is on the $368 billion  trade deficit. Yet, merchandise trade is only one aspect of the broad bilateral  economic relationship. Today, China is US’s second-largest merchandise trading  partner, third-largest export market, and biggest source of imports. 
  The increase of imports  from China in the US and the bilateral trade imbalance is largely the result of  the shift of production facilities from other, mainly Asian countries to China.  Since 1990, the share of US imports from China has soared sevenfold to 26 percent.  Today, China is the center for global supply chains, which has greatly lowered  US multinationals’ costs and thus prices for US consumers.
  During his tour in  Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines, Trump was accompanied  by CEOs of some 30 companies. Determined to sign huge deals during the China  visit, they did not want Trump to undermine access to what they see as the $400  billion Chinese market, based on US exports of goods and services to China,  sales by US foreign affiliates in China, and re-exports of US products through  Hong Kong to China.
  The same goes for  services, foreign direct investment (FDI) and US Treasury securities. China is  America’s fourth largest services trading partner (at $70 billion),  third-largest services export market, and US has a major services trade surplus  with China. 
  The combined annual  US-China investment passed $60 billion in 2016, but there is room for far more  as China is the world’s third-largest source of global FDI. 
Finally, China remains  the second-largest foreign holder of US Treasury securities ($1.2 billion as of  August 2017), which help keep US interest rates low. 
Three scenarios    
  There are only three  probable US-Chinese trade scenarios, after the US directive on steel imports  and national security, the recent US-Sino Comprehensive Dialogue, US reliance  of Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, and the investigation into China over  US intellectual property.
  In the “Trade  Pragmatism” scenario, the White House stance would focus not just on deficits,  but other critical bilateral dimensions as well. US multinationals and  consumers would continue to benefit from lower costs and prices. Emulating  General Electric and Caterpillar, US companies would adopt a more active role  in the One Road and One Belt (OBOR) initiatives. Chinese investment would  contribute to jobs in America. China-held US Treasuries would keep interest  rates moderate. The international role of US dollar would continue to erode,  but slowly.
  In the “Trade War”  scenario, bilateral deficits would dictate the White House’s stance, which  would result in progressive deterioration of the bilateral relationship. While  corporate giants with major China stakes, such as Apple and Walmart, would be  crushed (which would hit hard the US markets), US multinationals would be  penalized by higher costs and US consumers by higher prices. American companies  would miss historical opportunities in the OBOR initiatives. US would lose  Chinese capital and jobs. The bilateral service surplus would shrink. 
  With the sales of  Treasuries, rising interest rates would harm Trump’s $1 trillion infrastructure  modernization. The decline of US diplomacy could threaten the dollar’s  global-reserve status, especially as the US petrodollar – dollar spending based  on revenues from oil exports – will soon be augmented by China's petrorenminbi;  the use of Chinese yuan in oil transactions.
Until recently, the  White House’s stance has reflected a mixture of these two scenarios. But that has  come with uncertainty and volatility, which could prove challenging in crisis  conditions.
US reliance on Chinese market
  Over time, America’s  reliance on the Chinese market will deepen as per capita incomes in China will  double by 2020. According to Credit Suisse, China overtook the US in 2015 as the  country with the largest middle class at 109 million adults, as opposed to 92  million in the US. 
  The future translates  to more of the same. Private consumption in the US is growing at only 1.6  percent per year; in China, over five times faster.
  The global car industry  is a case in point. In the past, American cars dominated the international  market. But in 2018-9, unit sales in China will soar to 31 million, which is  almost twice the size of the US market. As a result, US companies, from old  players such as General Motors to new ones such as Tesla, invest heavily in  China, where they sell more cars than in the US. 
Other industries will  follow in the footprints, 
Dr Steinbock is the founder of the Difference Group and has served as the research director at the India, China, and America Institute (USA) and a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more information, see http://www.differencegroup.net/
© 2017 Copyright Dan Steinbock - All Rights Reserved
Disclaimer: The above is a matter of opinion provided for general information purposes only and is not intended as investment advice. Information and analysis above are derived from sources and utilising methods believed to be reliable, but we cannot accept responsibility for any losses you may incur as a result of this analysis. Individuals should consult with their personal financial advisors.
© 2005-2022 http://www.MarketOracle.co.uk - The Market Oracle is a FREE Daily Financial Markets Analysis & Forecasting online publication.
	

 
  
