Given that the trade woes and uncertainty in 2018 contributed to a more than 6% decline for the year in the markets overall. So a fair amount of the 2019 gain was simply covering that loss.
3
Will the welfare payments to the large soybean entities be repaid now? The automobile industry repaid theirs.
10
The small gains in this agreement should be compared to what we would have gotten with TPP, not what we would have gotten doing nothing. In that light, it doesn't look so good.
5
I share views of many comments posted--what positive benefits for the U.S. workers have resulted from this trade crisis? None. U.S. taxpayers gave $20 billion to soybean growers and Trump cuts food stamps for the working poor and children.
Are there more domestic manufacturing jobs now?
The real issue is how to improve job prospects for blue collar workers. Better training like Canada's, more public spending on K-12 education and pre-school education; helping workers leave depressed areas and relocate to area with good jobs; and Medicare for all so that everyone has good healthcare no matter their income or employer.
4
The stock market and the plight of average Americans have little in common.
You don't mention the billions of aid to farmers that the farmers say they don't get ... I guess it goes to agri-buisness or other deep pockets.
And building products in China is giving away the technology & know-how that's needed here. Elon Musk's manufacturing in other countries is spitting in the face of American workers.
The rich have an addiction.
2
You DON'T get a prize for fixing what you broke in the first place. Late in 2018, the threat of more tariffs and shutting down the federal government over the border wall, sank the markets. When that stupid circus ended, the markets naturally recovered. But it was the dumb plan that tanked the market in the first place.
In the meantime, I am sure some family farms and smaller manufacturers wished the whole thing had never happened. Once those things fracture, no deal will fix them.
5
The biggest trade agreement in history and the Democrat mob can't be bothered to give the President credit for a massive win for working American famiies
The truth!
Millions of new American jobs
1
China could care less about this agreement because they have their plan regardless and they have Africa and South America in their pockets. That is where the future growth is.
The key is whether big money can make deals with China. If they can't, our national debt and declining population is going to prove economically painful.
1
If only American politicians planned farther in the future than the next election cycle and cared about something other than themselves.
3
After all that chest-pounding, great accomplishment, and bragging, Donald & his trade guru have not made a dent on Chinese trade surplus. Last year's trade surplus has come to 500 billion, at par with the previous years.
China has simply shifted its trade, with the help of global supply chain, to other countries (and probably ended up in U.S. anyway). While it exported less to U.S., it has offset it with less imports from U.S. This is because China is simply a final assembly place for many products, so less out means less in.
Yet, the permanent damage to U.S. interest has been done by this bumbling, golf playing, tweet writing President that China is now active developing its own technology to be self sufficient in high tech industries like computer, 5G and cellphones. Also it has diversified its commodities purchases from the U.S. to Brazil, Argentina and Australia and etc.
Have we won? Absolutely NOT, Donald beats a tactical retreat for his re-election, but lost the whole economical war.
That's not a MAGA president but Terminator!
10
My cynical fear is that— like Ukraine where Trump did not care if Zelenski actually investigated Biden, he just wanted a public statement that he would investigate— Trump doesn’t really care if China actually buys stuff or stops shaking down U.S. companies for technology, he just wants them to say they will for his re-election purposes...
7
Forget about technology transfer. Trump’s trade war with China has accelerated precisely the nightmare that Obama’s Pacific initiative was designed to prevent: turning Vietnam and other SE Asia nations into China’s client states through migration of trade routes and manufacturing southward to avoid the tariffs.
More proof that tariffs, like taxes, don’t prevent unfair activity, they just move it elsewhere.
3
How effectively can trade secrets be kept? Once the factory produces your product they know how to build it? How hard is it for the producer, who now knows how to make the product, to modify it so as to apply for a patent in his own right? And even if a firm doing business in China knows there is a violation, doesn't that mean they must go through the Chinese court system, and that could be very expensive and opaque?
I once knew a designer and builder of bank teller stations who would design and file for patents, or claim he would file, designs very similar to rival producers. He would induce them to buy him out.
Trump's tariff's are what seem to be making it possible to buy support among farmers? And if you look at the Dept. of Agriculture figures approximately 5% of american farms make about 75% of sales. Half of american farms never break even. Trump's farm supports may only be benefitting the biggest growers?
3
The Times claims that "China is going to buy a big pile of soybeans and other American agricultural and energy product..."
In fact, Chinese authorities have made clear that they have no intention of forcing Chinese corporations to purchase more agricultural goods, will not supply subsidies to do so, and if purchases come in below that benchmark, China will do nothing to increase them.
Some deal.
4
China could make contractual purchase of agricultural products for many years out. This would fulfill their obligation under the agreement, However, farmers would then not get paid until the crops are delivered, many years from now.
2
It is a bigly deal! The best! Everyone says so!!!
1
Trump giveth and Trump taketh away.
1
This article fails to assess whether this "deal" is better than what we had before Trump started imposing tariffs. Certainly farmers and companies dealing with China have suffered, as have consumers who will continue to pay higher prices for Chinese goods. Not much winning here.
3
@Barbara
Do you actually know how this deal will affect farmers?
2
@AACNY Did you notice the falling PMI since the beginning of 2019 and then it went below 50 in Sep 2019 (meaning manufacturing was actually SHRINKING)?
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/business-confidence
2
We are use to lies. It was determined before Trump put this slop together, that China had already replaced U.S. Agricultural Commodity Imports. Why do you think Brazilians are burning down miles of jungle. As Trump has replaced democracy with autocracy, so has China made its choices. A metric of farming not distilled down as of yet, is the increased number of bankruptcies, but even more shameful, is the number of ag corporates, slurping up family farms at a discount. More corporate greed. Big story here.
What if tariff protocol, knowing the outcome, would benefit millionaire/billionaire farmers? Big farm business? With farmers killing themselves, who benefits from their demise?
4
Trump sows chaos with his ham-fisted China policy. So now we celebrate an agreement because it brings us closer to the status quo ante. Does that sum it up?
4
Republican voters were beginning to realize that that 40-year-old "trickle down" nonsense is nonsense; the $1500 billion 2017 tax giveaway was its last gasp. To replace it, Trump broke international trade and then looks like a hero by, at least partly, fixing what he broke just in time for the next election. Brilliant. But if voters ever wise up, or if Democrats ever learn how to act that cynically, Republicans will be in real trouble.
8
In the many hundreds of hours Trump has spent studying, deliberating, and participating in these trade talks, has he ever once asked the Chinese about the climate change hoax they have perpetuated on the world?
If we can gauge Chinese expertise and technical superiority by how thoroughly they’ve managed to manipulate the climate in support of their clandestine hoax, then Trump certainly shouldn’t be backing down now. Heck, they’re burning down forests in California, flooding out the soybean people of the Midwest, throwing hurricanes at us. We should be at WAR!
@T. Rivers Wait til they crank up their earthquake and tornado machines. But mostly what burns in California is brush, not forests of trees. Brush fires are more fun. They move faster (as the head of the fire department in Santa Maria learned in a brush fire that took him out a few decades ago).
Trump should be impeached every week. In perpetual need of victories to boast about he'd soon enough come to terms with every country his bullying tariffs have so seriously alienated.
3
These comments are funny, as are most when it comes to Trump. Anything Trump does that creates "tensions", such as confronting China or Iran, is automatically considered bad, even a cause of imminent war.
Have never seen so many who know so little about what is actually going on in the world because they cannot see past their animus towards this president.
4
@AACNY Such irony!
1
Donald Trump : What a master dealmaker.
-Now I know why he is one of few individuals to ever run multiple casinos into bankruptcy.
13
When discussing Trump, it is absurd to mention "building trust as negotiating partners." Name someone who can trust Trump. Maybe Putin who has dirt on him, but name anybody else. Waiting...
6
The debts of family farms must be paid by the government. Our president is the one who messed things up.
2
This pan of fried pork chops trade ' steal' with America is a real winner for Xi Jinping.
Having cast aside democracy with Chinese characteristics aka a term limited collective leadership model by claiming the Mandate of Heaven right to rule until his natural death Mr. Xi has the time while Mr. Trump has a watch.
By continuing socialism with Chinese characteristics aka capitalism Mr. Xi can reward his friends and punish his enemies one Chinese renminbi or one jail ssntence at a time.
For most of the past 2200 years China has been a socioeconomic political educational demographic diplomatic military scientific and technological superpower. America not so long.
No collusion! Make China Great Again!
2
To put this in context
Compared to one year ago, Chinese exports to the US fell by $ 67.4 billion, US exports to China fell by $ 32.4 billion
US imports from China
2018 $539.5 billion
2019 $ 472.1 billion
Decrease $ 67.4 billion
China imports from US
2018 $ 155.1 billion
2019 $ 122.7 billion
Decrease $ 32.4 billion
And here are the problems
First : This still leaves a trade deficit of $ 349. 4 Billion.
Second: China increasingly uses these trade surplus billions not to buy treasury bill but to built up their military to interfere with he strategic interest of the US [1.2]
Third: China continuous to operate State owned companies receiving loans from State owned banks. Such a set up can put any privately owned US company out of business - in the US - and China will if it is in her strategic interest
Fourth : The agreement is short of enforcement mechanism.
And the bottom line is this : China signed the agreement to stall for time.
Her hope is that a more pliable Democrat will be sworn in 2021. Trump has his faults, but the more conciliatory approach by President Obama got nowhere with President XI, who built up island after island in the South China Sea.
[1] With Ships and Missiles, China Is Ready to Challenge US Navy , NT Times Aug 29 2018
[2] China Commissions 2nd Aircraft Carrier, Challenging U.S. Dominance, NY Times Dec 17 , 2018
1
Give credit where credit is due. Sadly, the Times will never give Trump the credit he is due.
1
you mean the credit for lying, obstruction, and other corrupt acts?
2
@ehillesum : Did you read the article? The author gave him credit for negotiating something, and providing a path for future negotiations. That is pretty good for NYT.
This sounds a lot like the denuclearization agreement Trump never got with North Korea but he still bloviates about deserving the Nobel Peace prize for.
3
I'm not sure what's worse, the phony China crisis that's never really been, but now ostensibly "solved," or the dignified New York Times - wasting news space and trying to explain the President's "strategy" or "reasoning" of which there is an abysmal lack of, save one: get ME reelected.
4
How to succeed in politics: completely break the system and make it far worse than it is, bribe those who would get really hurt, and negotiate a deal that leaves you farther than you were at the start.
So much winning!
Come on, Neil! The start you write about is a false start, arrived at with haphazard diplomacy and ill-will. Those two are not good foundations for lasting agreements.
16
I am inclined to think that this is an overly optimistic assessment. The operative phrase is at the end of the article: it could all get undone with a few tweets by Trump. He has an unfailing knack for at least disrupting, if not undoing, whatever success he seems to achieve. Besides he creates a lot of turmoil and pain for many many people while eventually getting there. Eg, look at the cost farmers and manufacturers have paid thru this so called trade war. He is the King of Chaos while blaming others for all he causes.
3
Once again president Trump has done boldly what his preceding president said that was needed to be done but did not have the ability or the audacity/chutzpa to do it. /the trade turmoil did not hit soybean farmers as the article suggests. That is because the floods affected the quantity of the soybean harvest is many areas. The trade deal will help soybean farmers. Anyone who knows China will know that soybeans produced by American farmers are consumed more in the most populated country in the world than any other country. The variety of tofu in Chinese super markets is just so extensive that it will stun any foreign visitor. The trade deal which will be fair to both US and China will keep the soybean farmers in business for a very long time.
Americans should consume more soybeans than they do. A few years ago in a restaurant near the Beijung airport I had beer. Guess what it came with. Steamed soybeans and fresh red peppers. Quite a healthy combination. Sen Klobuchar do you like beer? As a well known midwesterner try some soybeans with beer.
2
This article seems to be another attempt on the part of NYT to ‘appear’ fair and impartial, which in this situation is a distortion of reality in and of itself. The Republicans calling the NYT partisan is not be feared if reportage of the facts leads one to the notion that this presidency is turning night into day and lies into truth.
This is a trade war and this is a truce, a weak one, but a truce, billions were lost around the world, it will take time, but in Trump world a wash is a win. Sad and pathetic.
1
I’ll believe it when my beans ship.
4
What a joke. Hooray for Trump? Hardly.
1
"A positive article about Trump in the NY Times? I must be living in a parallel universe. This is the first time since Trump got elected that I have read sometime that compliments him. Hopefully it is a sign of future impartiality. I wouldn't bet on it though."
Agreed and a half! That this NYT column had to be published grudgingly is an understatement. If Donald Trump found a cure for Cancer the "reporters" and pundits of the NYT would find five things wrong with it.
Future impartiality? As my father used to say, "You're living in a dream world."
2
This is a nothingburger aimed solely at allowing the prez to appear prezidential at the moment that the impeachment articles are being referred to the senate. It is a complete sham.
3
Neil Irwin seems to think that agreements "on the knottiest areas of negotiations", primarily intellectual property, mean something. China has agreed to some important changes, but China has agreed to every one of them in the past and it never meant diddly. In some cases, China has in the past proclaimed that it had taken care of the problem. Like with North Korea, there is no inspection and definitely no enforcement.
On the simpler matter of tariffs, we're better off than Trump had said he would make us - but much worse off than we would have been had Trump never become President. I tend to regard China's promise to buy so much more from America as like a Trump campaign promise, grandiose but unlikely to be fulfilled.
But Trump has declared victory, as he has so many times before in his trade war and in other areas. Are you tired of winning yet?
3
So much lipstick is smeared onto the "phase one deal". Short term pain is well within the tolerance level of China's economy by 2019. What Trump & his China hawks accomplished is forced China to accelerate self-sufficiency in every sector so they cannot be blackmailed again.
Complete de-coupling between the world's two largest economy is never in the card, but a high degree of decoupling in technology is inevitable because science and technology is much less flexible than barter and trade. Technology requires a large number of young scientists and engineers. Chinese universities are educating a lot more of them than USA.
Throw in another factor. Demographics in the world projects huge growth in African countries, India, SE Asia and perhaps South America. The world's larger populations are not in North America. China will surely focus on the future and diversify their trade.
1
The main point here is mentioned only in passing. Trump’s trade war has driven the Chinese to a vision of the future based on complete economic self-sufficiency and independence from the west—most specifically from us. We of course had legitimate issues to be settled, but we were more interested in bluster than progress.
The result is a huge negative for the world and particularly for us. We are losing both leverage and market access. We have made a poorer and less stable world that didn’t have to be.
There is no achievement in this agreement. The purchases are rightly recognized in the article as nonsense, and the rest recalls our great denuclearization of North Korea. We went into this trade war with half our leverage, because it had to be a Trump-specialty exclusive deal with no allies allowed in. We could have had a real agreement, and we got a campaign slogan. We’ve got to stop swallowing Trump’s “defense of the country” rhetoric—both intellectual property theft and the balance of payments deficit are way up under Trump.
The only real basis for such an agreement is common interest. After a trade war with the stated objective of destroying their economy, the Chinese decided there is no common interest, only a need to go their own way. We all lost big.
5
"It feels so good when I stop"... but he hasn't. maybe slowed the frequency a bit.
Most individuals learned early on that cooperation and fair results for ourselves and them works best. Some must work hard to make sure that the situation becomes worse and those involved are left with a range of undesirable emotions and less trust for the other. After a period of time, a strange courtship begins and the two parties exchange pleasantries and become cordial towards the other. Finally, the two approach the problem and start to work on it's solution. This dynamic to the rest of us is a lot of pain with little gained. It is a lot more pain if one of the individuals involved, wishes to avoid this ritual and as a result resentment is established. This process is avoided by most due to the lingering pain and memory. In a World that is complex and faces real problems and crisis, this model is not the best option. The Elephant in our China Trade tango is technology and innovation due to theft and extortion by the Chinese. It is also American greed. We want cheap labor and materials, China wants cheap tech and ideas. America may have gotten some progress on this dynamic in the latest deal, but the problem began with us. Avoid cheap labor and materials, and work with those who don't want to extort and steal.
6
What is missing here is an understanding about China's history since the late 19th century and an appreciation for change.
China had been exploited by aggressive "capitalist" powers during the decline of its imperial system, it was invaded by Japan, and it had a major civil war. By the early 1950s, with the victory of the CCP, China was able, using authoritarian means and ideological campaigns, to restore order and reorganize while remaining mostly isolated from the world. Once back on its own two feet, with a strong state, it engaged in major economic reforms, doing whatever it took to develop and bring its people out of poverty and into the modern world, including international trade and ruthless competition. By the early 2000s it was beginning to restore the highest quality to its educational institutions, join the club of tech giants, and compete like the most aggressive competitors.
Now it is one of the big guys, and the other scared big guys are insisting on a fairness that they never offered while China was down. The reality now is a world of competitors claiming to work under institutions and laws that are predictable and fair to all, but in fact, as we have seen in the practices at Nike, Enron, Wells Fargo, Volkswagen, the Sacklers, the Big Banks, etc., they cheat where they can get away with it (until caught, and then pay a small price).
This agreement with China is simply a face saving mechanism to cover continued competition under changing circumstances.
9
It's progress, undoubted progress!
2
@batazoid : Yes, insofar as 3 steps back, 1/2 step forward is progress!
1
Trump is the first president to address China head on like this. At the same time, he seems to have learned their "ways" and allowed them to save face as here.
The best part is that Trump won't back down and will continue to pursue our interests. He is like a machine in that regard. Even now he's trying to get Europeans on board with not using China's technology because of security threats.
8
@AACNY China's exports ROSE last year. Maybe you missed that report in the WSJ.
All they had to do was export to or through other countries. The markets American companies lost cannot be replaced by other countries because China is such a large market.
China's economic growth falling from 6% to 5% means less to them than ours dropping from 3% to 2%. And since they were growing TWICE as fast already (still do after the drop), they have more runway. If you make it about who lasts longer, it won't be us. Plus they have DOUBLE America's savings rate while we have DOUBLE the PERSONAL DEBT.
2
At $28 billion so far, Trump's Trade War farmer welfare queen program has cost taxpayers more than twice the 2009 bailout cost of Detroit’s Big Three automakers, which cost taxpayers $12 billion.
Can we end the Trump Trade War farmer welfare queen program now that Trump has declared 'victory!' ?
31
@Socrates Guess you want to see ethanol go also, the negative impacts all 'round doing great damage, to include the environment.
1
@Lee Herring
American corn ethanol is not environmentally friendly; sugar ethanol is.
Corn ethanol takes more energy to produce than it creates.
All it does is subsidize farmers, hurts the environment and decrease gas mileage.
Corn ethanol is a massive GOP welfare program.
4
@Socrates Welfare queens that work night and day to feed you three meals a day, keep clothes on your back, as well as your beer and wine and gas in the car. I wonder if Socrates always talks with his mouth full. American farmers never voted Repub to get that money, that was all Trump and his reckless misguided attempts to MAGA. If it had even been left as it was and slowly tweaked , it would have saved a fortune. American farmers are also tax payers.
1
So - higher prices for consumers, but further welfare payouts for farmers? The US loses again and again under Trump!
9
I loved the part about the gimcrack, “enforcement mechanism,” that undercuts the WTO and looks truly flimsy, after all the right-wing screaming about weak enforcement.
And speaking of right-wing screaming, how DOES this stack up against TPP?
4
This article neglects the extra burden tariffs put on consumers who ultimately pay for them as a hidden tax. Trump gave the middle class a small tax decrease while taking it away with 800 dollars annual inflation on our imported goods. And Trump's plan does nothing about this even as he touts the Chinese and himself for freer trade relations which may or may not occur.
It is possible that Trump's political ambitions may lead to some advances, but in his bluster we can not forget Trump's habit of promising the moon while giving us a few crumbs.
4
There will be doubts about China EVER trading WITHOUT cheating. If CHEATING is in the State's interest, they will cheat.
If we can retain our technological edge we have a chance to remain the #1 economic power in the world.
Too bad the left doesn't take a longer view. The nearly 50 yrs. since Nixon opened up China has seen the economic miracle of the Communists /opening up to more liberal trade. Too bad we haven't been willing to ask for a human rights miracle too.
3
@John Sullivan : The long view is that Trump's immigration policies will ensure we lose our technological edge. Reducing or stopping the flow of talented and wealthy international students will kill us.
Trump failed, again. This agreement is all air. China needed to buy time - enough time to hopefully see a new president elected. Trump's current tariffs aren't really hurting China and the $200 billion commitment to buy more American products, something China offered nearly 2 years ago, isn't even possible by 2021. The juggernaut of China's economy - the thing that Trump wanted to slow down - is unstoppable. Trump's bullying has created a greater unity and passion in China to beat America and more importantly, to not have to rely on us for chips from Intel and Qualcomm. This is all bad news for America. And it's all Trump's fault. Plus, get ready for higher bacon prices.
18
He wiped out the $26 billion dollar/yr soybean industry in 2018 and 2019 and crawls back to the table after sticking American tax payers with a $20 billion dollar tariff bill. The Chinese beat him at his own "tariff' game and he claims victory after we lose $72 billion on our side of the deal.This is Trump's idea of winning...it should be no surprise how he went bankrupt 4 different times and still calls himself a great businessman and deal maker. Can we afford 4 more yrs of this winning dealmaker?
3
Well, OK. The real problem is that the focus of Trump policy is narrow and misdirected. Trade deficits and intellectual property issues aren't really all that important.
China will become the dominant economic power in the world within the next ten years. China is building infrastructure and industrial capacity and forming international economic alliances that will eventually give it economic dominance. Of course, that will happen more than eight years from now and Trump doesn't care about what happens to the United States eight years from now. By then, he will be a private citizen cashing in on what he achieved for the rich during his tenure as President. Talk about the good old revolving government service door.
Right now, America has no answer to China's version of state capitalism. Reducing the deficit won't solve our problems.
3
The Trans Pacific Partnership would likely have acheived all this and more, without 2 years of economic turmoil. Trump will declare victory, the most magnificant of deal and that Americans will be great beneficiaries. Will Phase 2 ever occurr? I doubt this Administration has the ability to do phase 2, as that might include real negotations. The two biggest concerns, China's taking intellecutional property and government support for "private" business were barely touched. One with a promise to do more and the other not at all. Thus, the real fundamental issues wasn't addressed at all. Progress, perhaps but then perhaps not.
12
I wouldn't worry too much about farmers incomes.
There are a myriad of fed programs in place.
Always have been.
Soybeans currently are around $10/bushel, we should all have it so hard.
12
If we had stayed in the Trans-Pacific Partnership we and our treaty allies could have applied far more pressure to China at far lower cost to ourselves.
41
Just a thought... I feel like the Times has reported in the past year about China buying up millions of acres of agricultural land in the US. And there is also the trend of corporate farms squeezing out family farms. So is China just now agreeing to buy commodities that it is producing on its own corporate farms that it operates in the American heartland?
Seems worthy of some scrutiny.
34
I hope the author is right and this agreement shows progress.
China is the oldest country, biggest country in population, and will likely have the biggest economy in a few years.
But most importantly, it is a key for handling (peacefully) North Korea and also for working on climate change. The United States needs to have a good working relationship with China.
That need is greater than our support for Hong Kong or Taiwan or the Uighurs in the West of China.
We needn't soft peddle our concerns for human rights and democracy in regard to these issues, but we need to set priorities.
Threats posed to our national security (read survival) by climate change and by North Korea are the most compelling reasons to engage China as a partner, rather than an adversary.
However, there is a fair amount of sabre rattling and demagoguery on both sides, so it will not be easy, and the short-term political costs may motivate our leaders and theirs not to seek an accommodation (certainly not a rapprochement.)
Hopefully, some long-term vision of our two countries working together for our mutual survival will break out in Washington DC and Beijing so that we can work together to save ourselves.
Unfortunately, the only force I see that might bring us to a partnership with each other is an unholy disaster that makes it clear we have no choice but to work together.
6
This is quite fantastical--create a crisis, back (mostly) down, declare victory and earn applause. This is more than setting the bar low. The bar for "success" is underground.
42
Nice work Mr. President. Keep it up,
18
I don’t even need to read this agreement to know it’s frail, weak, and won’t amount to hill of soy beans. It’s Trump, the easiest world leader to lead by the nose. China’s eyes are way down the road. Trump’s eyes are focused on the bathroom mirror.
70
@Mike, Smith Your open mindedness is shared by many here.
1
@Mike Smith
Your eyes aren't even on the agreement, yet you profess to know it's all bad? Has it occurred to you that you might be wrong about Trump? Food for thought.
2
Market manipulation. This will be like the FoxCon deal in Wisconsin. Renting out a squalid warehouse and putting several people in it. Congratulations.
21
I guess the ends could justify the means but, keeping in mind that most of Trump's support comes from people who think China is paying the tariffs, you have to figure in the cost to the American people of being so easily misled on such a crucial element of trade negotiations. It's not a good idea to show the other side what suckers we are.
33
What a fluff piece of journalism. Trump eases the tensions he created, and now we are better off? Why ? We are still paying hundreds of millions of tariffs, and there is no way either side has gained trust. If anything, the Chinese realize they can never trust the USA. Each side will only do what is absolutely necessary, nothing more, and probably less.
63
This is utterly absurd. Trump manufactured this crisis, for which the taxpayers are paying the price to help farmers who were hurt by it, and now you are crowing about a blueprint for progress?
54
What world are you on? Trump with tax cut 2 is going to bust the USA budget and we will borrow a trillion each year from them and then they own the country!
29
A positive article about Trump in the NY Times? I must be living in a parallel universe. This is the first time since Trump got elected that I have read sometime that compliments him. Hopefully it is a sign of future impartiality. I wouldn't bet on it though.
11
@Steven
It must be a very good deal if the NYT is willing to admit this.
1
He sets your garage on fire and stands there with the garden hose showing how he saved the foundation!
46
"a blueprint for progress"? C'mon NYT, seriously.
Like with Iran, that kind of progress? Like allowing non-white folks to maybe live in your properties, maybe? That kind of progress? Like love letters to North Korea? That kind of progress?
What kind of 'progress' does filling in a hole you just dug, exactly? The 'blueprint' is just the opposite of what you already did -- a return trip with strutting. Oh, and all the winning, so much winning.
31
My bet is that this is mainly show for the upcoming election. Bottom line is that Trump's 'brain trust' - if they can be called that - are hell-bent on one thing and one thing only: preserving American hegemony. Peter 'Death by China' Navarro, Steve Bannon, John Bolton and Trump himself will stop at nothing. This is reality TV, nothing more. Something is sure to happen to will give Donald an excuse to rip this up. Just watch.
12
This is not a deal. It’s a statement of aspirations and the inverse of a real trade deal that eliminates barriers and transaction costs. I don’t see a basis here for anything other than China and the US moving on and being wary of each other. The deal is a symbol of the US inability to compete on the merits thus seeking promises from China to buy products it does not need. This deal is a symptom of a failure by the US to cope with China’s competitiveness.
11
@PAUL NOLAN
A symptom of a symptom... Trump being the symptom of craven defense contractors and craftier nations controlling our foreign policy by the price tag stuck to Trump’s shoe.
Are there good reasons to believe this agreement will last long enough to become a plausible part of business planning assumptions about the future? Is this agreement complete or are there details to be worked out, details that might expose different understandings between the parties and cause the agreement to come undone? What is the mechanism for resolving disputes, if there is any mechanism still acceptable to us?
6
It's estimated that framers lost $60billion in trade from Trump's tariffs and in the process destroyed trade relationships going back years to decades. Chinese companies have forged new business relationships and vague promises to buy more are meaningless while even the promised amounts are barely enough to make up for what was lost. Similarly, promises to respect intellectual property mean nothing without concrete rules and changes in the Chinese subsidy programs. Irwin is bending over backwards to declare this a success, probably for the page clicks, without giving any reason to believe further changes are actually going to happen - Trump has no leverage and the Chinese know it.
36
@bcw $28 billion loss, not $60 billion. Those losses were an investment (China lost too). This first step represents the beginning of the return in that investment. Econ 101.
2
@James R
Econ 101: no one wins in a trade war.
2
@James
$46B Trump tariff cost to Americans.
Try harder.
If trump hadn’t trashed the TPP agreement his leverage would have been much greater and the China agreement might have been a real win, not just a photo op and a twitter burst
29
The Art of the Con and Americans and our companies pay the price. That's rich.
23
The trade deficit with China was (is) a tremendous negative for the US economy and US based jobs. At least Trump has done something constructive about it.
7
@John Roberts I think something constructive would have been to renegotiate the existing trade deal for better terms. Instead farmers lost billions and we spent billions on agricultural welfare. How many farms were lost? How many of those lost farms were scooped up for pennies on the dollars by corporate farms, owned and operated by the 1% ?
27
Exactly how does this “deal” address the trade deficit? Classic Trumpism. Create a crisis, blame others, revert to original status quo, declare victory. Only Deplorables still fall for this pony show.
27
Trade deficits are meaningless statistics and are not a gauge of economic successes. You are perpetuating a false argument.
12
It is hard not to view this as another example of the Trump standard pattern.
1. Create a crisis
2. Blame Obama, the Democrats, anyone else for the crisis
3. Watch while people run around with their hair on fire for a while.
4. Roll back the original crisis action
5. Declare victory
We have seen this over and over. Trump solves the crisis he created. This is worse, because Trump's "solution" is largely cosmetic. It is hard not to see it as a distraction from the impeachment.
And it is also a prime example of market manipulation. When the rumors of this First Stage nothing-of-a-deal got out, the stock market soared. This is a bubble created entirely by Trump. How much did he make off of this? How much did Mnuchin make? How much did their cronies make?
105
As for how much they made- that will only be deducible in the aftermath. They have to trigger a Sell event to capture gains.
1
@William O, Beeman
There's also a pattern in the anti-Trump comments. They are the same regardless of the article's topic.
2
It’s way too early to call this progress.
15
I hate the idea of “Constructive Ambiguity”. It is not ok for political leaders to intentionally mis-represent the facts in order to score political points. That is called propaganda.
American citizens are entitled to know the specific laws that govern their economy, and I would expect a newspaper I pay for to fight for that information.
17
Give Trump a little credit. He’s gotten farther with China concessions then anyone else. This isn’t a bad deal....it’s not everything, but better than Obama or Bush.
11
How so? What did we gain? Higher tariffs and less trade? How is that Winning?
23
@Steve B Pay attention Steve...
2
Donald Trump is an idiot, but he was right about taking action against China's abusive trade practices. Obama had taken China to the WTO and won some cases, but that wasn't good enough. Piecemeal efforts to curb China's abuses were not going to solve the problem.
Prior to Trump, both Democrats and Republicans were chanting the "free trade" mantra.....even though China is hardly practicing free trade. Like Japan, South Korea, Germany and others, it is an export economy which set up tariffs and other restrictions on the importation of American manufactured goods. But China was much larger and it's practices devastated American workers.
Retail companies complain bitterly about the tariffs, but that is probably the only action that would get China's attention. Hopefully, both Republicans and Democrats will take China's trade abuses seriously. This is a long term struggle.
9
You are so incredibly, sadly, and unmistakably naive. This is not a deal. This is a sham. Does nothing to help farmers, or others hurt by the senseless, infantile Trade War -- Trump's legacy to the heartland. After 50 years of U.S. work to develop, sustain and grow ag markets overseas while establishing a reputation as a reliable trade partner, the biggest winners from all of this insanity have been producers in other parts of the world -- mostly the farmers in Brazil and Argentina. We need Obama-style policies -- policies based on intelligence, experience and shared interests -- now more than ever. Banish the clowns!
45
Ever the cheerleader for trump’s “robust” economy for the one percenters. Dude sez their is a secret deal we just can’t know about yet. Really? What Utter Nonsense. They got nothing from this. A promise to buy more grains? Been there, done that. Trade deficits? Remember? Higher than ever. Manufacturing? Not so much. Intellectual property? Nada. State subsidies? Zilch. But thanks for playing.
20
The only reason that "the $40 billion in planned agriculture purchases may stretch the capacity of American farmers to fulfill" is that this stupid trade war put so many farms out of business.
Because that $40B is over a two-year period, which would average out to the WORST two years since we exported just over $15B to China in 2009.
So it may sound like a lot, but over a two-year period, it is a major step back from the heyday during the Obama era of exporting well over $25B.
11
I see I read it wrong and it will supposedly be $40B per one year.
So no longer underwhelming, but now obviously pie in the sky.
4
Ok, lets go over it again Neil.
1-Trump is a business moron. He failed at just about everything he has
done in business and is empire is built on a house of cards with backing from Russian mafia types and Israel. He was, is now and will always be a free trader. If you think he is gonna stop American companies from getting cheap labor in China or worse other slave labor countries I have a bridge I want to sell you here in Brooklyn.
2-Chinese are skilled negotiators.
Either one of two things will happen. If Trump is still behind in the polls he will under the table beg for any deal from China and announce he is the greatest president since Lincoln. If Trump is winning there is no incentive for China to give in and they will hunker down and wait till he gets term limited in app. 5 yrs.
8
Tariffs on agriculture products have far reaching consequences. Whether it’s beans or oaks, long range planning is necessary for sustainable production. Tariffs recklessly and unfairly upset these markets with little benefit to our national welfare.
10
I was in Best Buy earlier today and I saw 65" TVs for $449. Now I don't know if they were made in China or Vietnam or Korea but the price of consumer high tech items is just getting less and less day by day. I doubt that tariffs on these sort of items will put consumers off buying them: there were plenty of buyers a year ago when they cost double this amount; and if you really want a 75" TV for $(not a lot) then the effect of tariffs may be just that you have to delay your purchase by 3 months.
5
@Andrew the price is not about the TV--it is about tracking/selling your data through the TV for advertising and whatever else your data is sold for. That's why TVs are cheap.
Business leaders will appreciate having predictability in tariffs so they can make investment decisions based on stable future costs, which makes markets optimistic. But it's hard to see this as more than Trump declaring victory over a decision to stop shooting himself in the foot.
37
@woofer Although he is going to continue shooting in the foot the people who are paying for the tariffs, and those who have lost their jobs because of his tariffs.
10
Stop being coy. Trump started the fire, and now wants props for putting it out. Horrible policy and business approach. Esp since he seems to have left a few embers burning. Trump is making us all look like fools, and the Senate is letting him do it.
147
@Meg Riley -agreed unlike ourselves who can call Trump for what he is, an ego maniac demagogue moron (and those are some of the nicer things I can say about him), Neil can't do that.
He has to pretend the guy is normal.
3
@Meg Riley
Right on!
This pan of fried pork chops Chinese trade 'steal' with America is another big win for Xi Jinping.
Having gotten rid of democracy with Chinese characteristics aka a collective term limited leadership model by claiming the Mandate of Heaven of a Chinese Emperor to rule until his natural death, Mr. Xi has the time while Mr. Trump has a brolen watch.
By holding onto socialism with Chinese characteristics aka capitalism, Mr. Xi can reward his friends and punish his enemies one renminbi and one jail sentence at a time.
For most of the past 2200 years China has been a socioeconomic political educational demographic diplomatic military scientific and technological superpower ruling with the Mandate of Heaven from the Central/:Middle Kingdom America not so long nor well.
No collusion! MCGA aka Make China Great Again!
1
"More durable trade peace"
Really. All it takes is one tweet claiming Trump sold us out, and Trump rips up the agreement to prove his manhood. What president have you been watching the last three years?
73
Create a crisis.
Hurt Americans who pay the tariffs.
Just in the nick of time as election season starts announce a “great trade deal” which is just another return to the prior status quo, gaining nothing and playing the press for fools for reporting this propaganda verbatim.
134
Munchausen by proxy. Over and over and over ....
1
Why do we still believe in vague promises without teeth? This could easily turn out to be as meaningless as the so-called agreement with North Korea.
53
Tariffs with China, paid for by the American Taxpayer. Can China buy 40 billion dollars of farm equipment and agriculture? We the taxpayer bailed out the farmer to the tune of 20 billion dollars, make American taxpayer great again.
51
Trump gets no credit for half-solving trade wars he unilaterally and unnecessarily started, whether with China, allies or other trade partners.
105
@North
There was a trade war with China way before Trump got elected. It's just that America wasn't fighting back. Now it is. Thanks President Trump.
6
@Steven Never mind the TPP, which was dismantled by Trump.
2
The “deal” isn’t a deal at all, and coverage should clearly show it. It’s a phony framework proposal.
70
Another one of Trump's empty and mostly ceremonial agreements with one of our biggest adversaries. The only positive so far is that it has temporarily calmed the childish tit for tat from both authoritarian leaning and egomaniacal leaders whose tariff war was dragging down economies around the world. Warren certainly showed her depth of knowledge and minute understanding of trade and trade deals when the subject came up in the debates. Although it centered more on the USMC agreement, I would like to see what a Warren administration would do toward pressing China to enact and uphold fairer trade practices.Trump essentially whiffed, and Xi, I suspect, is biding time until the 2020 election is over.
26
Now would be a good time to agree to amendments to the WTO rules and to restore its appellate body's functioning with full appointments. Other things worth doing would be to block imports made with stolen technology under existing law and precedent and to place antidumping tariffs on underpriced imports and countervailing duties on illegally subsidized imports. This would be a good way to move away from blunderbuss tariffs and toward a more focused approach on the identified trade problems.
9
Trump realized that his trade war with China was affecting agricultural exports from US farmers, who make up part of his ‘base’. The reality is that Trump did not get anything from Chinese negotiators he could not have gotten 3 years earlier. This is a good start and hopefully will lead to a comprehensive trade agreement with China that benefits both parties. There are no winners from trade wars.
10
So, the progress is in moving back to where we were early in Trump's Presidency. China will be glad to be able to buy soybeans again. The boasted dollar amount of agricultural products is probably inflated by at least a factor of ten if not a hundred or more, as we have seen in earlier Trump pronouncements of "great deals" with Saudi Arabia, and Japan.
14
When I look back at the way "engagement" was sold to the US and other Western societies; that it would "change China from within", and "create a burgeoning middle class that would demand human and civil rights", etc., I can only surmise that it was a dismal failure.
Somehow, in the intervening 25 years, one by one, those stated benefits fell by the wayside. This culminated with the rise of Xi and the loss of any hope for political reform in China.
On the contrary, China has become increasingly aggressive both in its region and with its developed economy trading partners.
The fact that the democratic world finds itself dependent on China for an increasing range of products, including the upcoming 5G mobile telecommunications system, boggles the mind.
There won't be a "phase two" agreement worth the name in my opinion and it will be the West that starts to emulate China in its system of government and complete control of society rather than the other way around (which is what we were promised)!
15
@trblmkr "I can only surmise that it was a dismal failure." Fortunately for the world and China, you would be wrong.
China HAS changed tremendously in the past 25 years. The middle class has swelled - luxury good vendors are mobbing the secondary and tertiary cities to sell their wares. The populace do not look to Marxism and Leninism to guide their lives. Even the party members study economics and IPOs more than the old dogmas. Internet discussions are free flowing and wide ranging - with a few taboo subjects which do get censored. Certainly, it is still an authoritarian society. But to maintain their authority, the leaders must keep growing the economy and lifting the standard of livings of ordinary Chinese. They could not rely on doctrinal purity to maintain control. Hence this trade deal is cemented because it is helps them maintain stability and authority. As for China becoming more aggressive. Please point out when China has sent its armed forces to invade another nation in the past 25 years. (Please do not bring up uninhabited islands with a few square miles of surface.)
I recommend Fareed Zakaria's recent article in Foreign Policy for a more comprehensive view on how China has changed and where the points of cooperation and conflict are.
19
@t bo
"The populace do not look to Marxism and Leninism to guide their lives."
No, they must learn Xi Jinping thought."
Maybe you weren't around when US citizens were told that "soon" China would embrace political pluralism and start by holding local elections with non Communist parties taking part.
I've forgotten more about Chinese political history than Fareed Zakaria will ever know.
4
@t bo True, they haven't invaded other countries, but China is claiming more than a few islands; they are claiming large areas of the ocean. They are bullying smaller countries. And Xi Jinping has said they "make no promise to renounce the use of force" against Taiwan.
4
The only trade "deal" that makes sense to me is one that focuses not on China, or any other nation with which we trade. What would make sense to me would be a US policy of balanced trade discipline focused on ourselves. Grant US exporters $ trade credits that US importers must buy on a regulated exchange before releasing US $ to pay for imports. As in balancing a household budget, spend no more than you earn.
1