Tag Archives: Trade War

Trudeau Prepares Sacrifice Of Canadian Job Market For Her Majesty

Remember Ottawa Justin is nothing more than her majesty’s spokesman…

Report: Canada Comfortable Resisting Trump By Intentionally Missing Trade Negotiation Timeline…

According to a CBC article citing a “Senior Canadian Official”, the Trudeau government is completely “comfortable” missing an October 1st deadline to join the U.S-Mexico trade alliance:

…”The source who spoke to CBC News on background, due to the sensitivity of the talks, said the external political pressure “is not a good enough reason,” for Canada to be forced into a fast finish.”… (more)

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/trump-freeland-and-trudeau.jpg?w=1024&h=576

This statement follows a series of actions by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Justin Trudeau which highlights their intent to resist any trade agreement while counting on domestic politics to deliver electoral forgiveness.  Indeed for all intents and purposes it would appear Justin and Chrystia are willing to damage their economy for political benefit.

Meanwhile the Mexican government is affirming their intent to go forward with a bilateral trade deal if needed because the U.S-Mexico joint agreement is in their best interests.  According to Mexico’s Chief Negotiator, Kenneth Smith-Ramos:

“We hope the U.S. and Canada will conclude their bilateral negotiation shortly. If that is not possible we are ready to advance bilaterally with the U.S … the agreement in principle that we closed with the U.S. is positive for Mexico because it preserves free trade and modernizes our trade agreement …”

A year ago it seemed almost impossible to see an agreement with Mexico that would facilitate the interests of both countries.  However, with the successful election of Mexican President Lopez-Obrador, a remarkable populist shift dramatically changed the landscape within the Mexican economic outlook and policy.

Outgoing Mexican President Peña Nieto, structured his economic policy around accepting multinational corporate investment and the parasitic outcomes at follow. Exfiltration of wealth and exploitation of resources/labor are an outcropping of predatory multinational trade exploitation and globalism.

Retention of the multinational schemes generally leads to massive corruption. In the U.S. this corruption is known as “lobbying”, in Mexico the process is called ‘bribery’; however, the activity is the same.

The incoming Mexican President, Lopez-Obrador (AMLO), is more of an economic nationalist; and quite remarkably his economic outlook, at least as his team has described the objectives so far, is quite Trumpian. You might even say: “Make Mexico Great Again”.

Both U.S. President Trump and Mexican President-elect AMLO have similar outlooks toward predatory multinational corporations and economic exploitation. If you think about how Mexico was used by the multinationals in the past twenty years; and then think about a very real possibility of a U.S President and Mexican President having an economic friendship; well,… holy cats, those multinationals could be remarkably nervous right now.

AMLO supports labor and has an agenda to create a strong middle-class. President Trump supports labor, and his economic agenda is laser focused on a strong middle-class. AMLO views Wall Street multinationals as predatory by disposition. President Trump views those same multinationals as tending toward predatory behavior and in need of correction for their participation in the erosion of the American middle-class. AMLO is a strong Mexican Nationalist. President Trump is a strong American Nationalist.

As long as AMLO stays away from the authoritarian tendencies of power, ie. government ownership of private industry; surprisingly he and President Trump are likely to have a great deal more in common than most would think. Both populists; both nationalists.

This explains why the framework of the U.S-Mexico trade agreement was possible to construct. Right now both teams are filling in the details.

With AMLO and President Trump, Mexico and the U.S. have joint-interests in an economic trade bloc. President Trump and President Lopez-Obrador have common objectives; and with the economic approach outlined by AMLO toward using Mexico’s energy resources as leverage for expanded investment, the U.S. is well positioned to help.

President Trump is well positioned to assist the united trade bloc with expanded cross-border investment for economic development. AMLO wants a higher standard of living for Mexican workers; President Trump wants greater parity between Mexican workers and their U.S. counterparts. Heck, it was U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and USTR Robert Lighthizer who first proposed raising the Mexican minimum wage. Now both countries have agreed to an incremental Mexican minimum wage aspect of $16/hr within the auto sector.

Combining the wage aspect with the content and origination agreement, this has become a win/win for both AMLO and President Trump. The multinationals within the auto-sector might not like it, but they’ve already put a massive amount of money into plant and manufacturing investment in their existing Mexican footprint. They have no choice.

In an generally overlooked outcome the nationalist interests of Mexico, specific to AMLO, are very close to alignment with the nationalist MAGA agenda of President Trump. Canada is the globalist oddball in this tri-fecta; which makes a trilateral deal almost impossible, and explains why Mexico is so willing to sign a bilateral agreement.

The U.S. economy is expanding at an unprecedented rate, and Mexico prepares to surf the MAGAnomic tsunami known as Donald Trump.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/trump-thumbs-up-5.jpg?w=211&h=195

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/amlo-andres-manuel-lopez-obrador.jpg?w=341&h=192

 

 

 

 

 

Finish by listening to Canadian Ezra Levant of The Rebel to break it all down for us…

Source: by Sundance | The Conservative Tree House

Advertisements

China’s Trade War Surplus With US Hits Record High At The Worst Possible Time

Three days after the US reported a record trade deficit with China, overnight Beijing confirmed this record print when the General Administration of Customs announced that China’s trade surplus with the U.S. hit another record monthly high in August, rising to $31.05 billion from $28.09 billion in July, and surpassing the previous record set in June as the world’s second-largest economy faced the threat of more tariffs from the Trump administration.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/China%20trade%20US%20aug.jpg?itok=1Kae-6y7

A key reason for the latest record print was the sharp slowdown in US outbound trade, as China’s imports from the US grew only 2.7% in August, a sharp slowdown from 11.1% in July. At the same time, China’s exports to the United States accelerated, growing 13.2% from a year earlier from 11.2% in July, even as U.S. tariffs targeting $50 billion of Chinese exports took full effect for their first full month in August.

Over the first eight months of the year, China’s trade surplus with the US – its largest export market – has risen nearly 15% arguably at the worst possible time, as the number will surely add to tensions in the trade relationship between the world’s two largest economies which culminated with Trump’s announcement on Friday that he is planning to slap tariffs on virtually all Chinese goods entering the US.

Behind China’s export boost a combination of factors: i) the weaker Chinese yuan and ii) exporters’ front loading of shipments in anticipation of more tariffs, both of which contributed to the worsening trade imbalance according to Liu Xuezhi, an economist with Bank of Communications.

Chinese officials acknowledged Chinese exporters have been rushing out shipments to beat new U.S. tariffs, artificially buoying the headline growth readings, while some companies such as steel mills are diversifying and selling more products to other countries. “In the short term, it is difficult for the trade gap to narrow because American buyers cannot easily find alternatives to Chinese products,” Liu said. This suggests that the trade war, which has been escalating, won’t be resolved quickly, the Shanghai-based economist said.

A more optimistic take came from Zhang Yi, an economist at Zhonghai Shengrong Capital Management, who told Reuters that “there is still an impact from front-loading of exports, but the main reason (for still-solid export growth) is strong growth in the U.S. economy.”

Whatever the reason, for Trump the growing trade deficit with China is confirmation that his trade policies have failed to yield results in boosting trade; this has prompted the US president to roll out increasingly more aggressive tactics to pressure Chinese trade. A summary timeline of the trade tensions between the US and China is laid out below.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/china%20us%20timeline.jpg?itok=uUuQdt5x

President Trump said Friday the administration is ready to announce tariffs on another $267 billion in Chinese goods, on top of levies on $200 billion of Chinese products it has been preparing. If enacted, the third round of tariffs would bring the total amount of goods subject to levies to more than the $505 billion of products the U.S. imported from China in 2017, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Aside from the US, overall Chinese trade in August posted a modest slowdown, as China reported a trade surplus of $27.91 billion in August, narrowing from a surplus of $28.05 billion a month earlier, and below the $31 billion consensus estimate. 

Exports growth for China moderated to 9.8% from 12.2% in July, below the 10% estimate. Imports growth decelerated as well to 20.0% yoy in August, from a strong increase of 27.3% yoy in July, but above the 18.7% consensus estimate, boosted by the cut in import duties for some consumer goods from July 1, 2018.  In sequential terms, exports momentum weakened to a contraction of 0.8% M/M non-annualized, the first time since April, from +0.2% in July. Imports declined as well by 1.0% M/M non-annualized, down from +5.6% in July.

And here a curious observation: China’s trade surplus with the United States was larger than China’s total net surplus for the month, which means China would be running a deficit if trade with the world’s largest economy was excluded.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/China%20trade%20balance%20total%20aug%202018.jpg?itok=DzojA3XR

While no one has predicted a sudden, sharp blow from U.S. tariffs, China’s official export data has been surprisingly resilient so far, with growth exceeding analysts’ expectations for five months in a row.

Yet while economists have noted that disruptions in supply chains are likely to be more company specific, and will take time to be reflected in broad economic data and corporate earnings reports, anecdotal evidence of mounting trade damage on both sides of the Pacific is on the rise. Official and private manufacturing surveys for China show global demand for Chinese goods is clearly on the wane, with export orders shrinking for months in a row.

“Risks have increased due to the negative impacts of China-U.S. trade friction. The impact on exports may gradually start to show up, with future export growth possible declining,” said Liu Xuezhi said.

For now however, the tenuous stalemate remains: while Trump is winning the trade war as represented by the capital markets, China continues to win in what really matters: a growing trade surplus with the US.

Source: ZeroHedge

Trade Wars Just Beginning… In A Fight Over An Indefinitely Shrinking Pie

From a growth perspective, it doesn’t matter if the world is 7.5 million or 7.5 billion persons…it only matters how many more there are from one year to the next.  Economic growth (or the ability to consume more…not produce more) is about the annual growth of the population among those with the income, savings, and access to credit (or governmental social pass-through programs).  That’s what this trade war is all about and why it’s just beginning.  First it was a fight for decelerating growth…but now it’s about a shrinking pool of consumers.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/download%20%281%29_3.png?itok=DO2GUo09

Nowhere is this decline in potential consumers more acute than East Asia (China, Japan, N/S Korea, Taiwan, plus some minor others).  I have previously detailed China’s situation HERE but the chart below shows the broader East Asia total under 60 year old population (blue line) and annual change in red columns.  Peak growth in the under 60yr/old population (consumer base) took place way back in 1969, annually adding 22 million potential consumers.  As recently as 1988, an echo peak added 19 million annually but the deceleration of growth since ’88 has been inexorable.  Then in 2009, decelerating growth turned to decline and the decline will continue indefinitely.  What began as a gentle decline is about to turn into progressively larger tumult.  By 2030, the under 60yr/old population will be 9% smaller than present.  East Asia’s domestic consumer driven market is collapsing in real time and it’s reliance on exports greater than ever.

The chart below shows the total 0-65 year old global population (minus Africa and India…blue line) and the annual change in that population in the red columns.  Why excluding Africa/India?  Because they represent nearly all global population growth, consume less than 10% of the global exports, and haven’t the income, savings, or access to credit to consume relative to the rest of the world.  Growth (x-Africa/India) peaked in 1988, annually adding 52 million prime consumers.  However, the annual growth of that population has decelerated by 2/3rds to “just” 17 million in 2018.  Before 2030, the under 65 year old population will peak and begin shrinking.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/download%20%282%29_3.png?itok=_EGpOR1Q

Simply put, West and East are fighting over a soon to be shrinking pie.  Of course, individual companies will perform better than others…but on a macro basis, global demand will be falling indefinitely aside from the debt and monetization schemes  federal governments and central bankers can conjure.

From an asset appreciation viewpoint, consider the decelerating (and soon to be declining consumer population) vs. accelerating asset appreciation.  The chart below shows the same annual under 65yr/old population growth (x-Africa/India) versus the fast rising Wilshire 5000 (all publicly traded US equities, yellow line) and global debt (red line).

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/download%20%283%29_3.png?itok=S9vdS79y

Next, consider the decelerating annual global population growth (as a percentage of total population x-Africa/India) versus the supposed infinite 7.5% appreciation of assets (chart shows the Wilshire 5000 continuously growing at 7.5%) versus fast decelerating consumer growth. Clearly, anticipated asset appreciation is all about rising debt and monetization…not organic growth.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/download%20%284%29_3.png?itok=hxWOLOs9

Finally, a peek at the situation in the US. The chart below shows fast decelerating annual growth of the under 65 year old US population as a % of total population (black line), the ebullient Wilshire 5000 (shaded red area), actual and anticipated 7.5% appreciation of US stocks from 1970 through 2025 (dashed yellow line), and total disposable personal income representing the actual economy (blue line).

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/download%20%284%29_3.png?itok=hxWOLOs9

Infinite growth  models are running headlong into very finite limits.  Invest accordingly.

Source: ZeroHedge

Global Trade War Could Not Have Come At A Worse Time

Despite all the propaganda that the world had reached utopian levels of ‘globally synchronous recovery’ growth last year, 2018 has seen that narrative collapse as China’s credit impulse dries up, The Fed continues on its path to ‘normalization’, and the world wakes up to Europe’s smoke and mirrors economic renaissance…

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018-04-06_2-09-59.jpg?itok=B5LidMt4(click for larger image)

And, as if that was not enough to spook even the most ardent bull, Bloomberg notes that rapidly accelerating trade ‘battles’ are focusing minds on that simmering threat to markets: the eventual easing of synchronized global growth.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/2018-04-06_2-04-30.jpg?itok=x1PllmGaThe U.S. version – which includes economic, credit and corporate indicators – is close to its 2007 peak.

The trade war tensions have arrived at a risky time, with Morgan Stanley’s cycle gauge for the developed world nearing levels last seen before prior recessions.

Source: ZeroHedge

Some Perspective On The US Trade Deficit With China

In light of increasing trade threats between the US and China, some perspective on US trade deficits is warranted. Piecing together data from a variety of sources, the following chart shows the US balance of trade since 1790, shortly after the country’s founding.

https://i1.wp.com/thesoundingline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/US-Balance-of-Trade-Since-1790-Updated.jpg

The US maintained very closely balanced trade for the first 200 years of the country’s history. From 1790 until 1974, the last year in which the US ran a trade surplus, the US exported roughly $102 billion more than it imported. Since 1974, the US has run a cumulative trade deficit exceeding $11.64 trillion. In other words, in the last 44 years the US trade deficit was 113 times larger than the trade surplus it amassed during all previous American history. The massive deterioration in the US balance of trade since the 1970s is both historically anomalous and highly unsustainable. That multiple Presidents and Congresses have come and gone without taking serious action to correct the imbalance is indefensible, particularly given the American people’s near universal recognition of the problem and its deleterious impacts.

The US is not starting a trade war, the US has been in a trade war since the 1970s and it has been losing badly.

As we discussed here, the bulk of America’s trading problem is not with its free trade partners. The US has entered into free trade agreements with 20 countries and has seen its balance of trade improve with 16 of them since adopting an agreement. The notable exceptions are Mexico and Israel. The following chart shows the indexed change in the balance of trade with the US’s free trade partners since the inception of an agreement.

https://i1.wp.com/thesoundingline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Change-in-US-Trade-Deficit-With-Free-Trade-Partners.jpg

The majority of the US trade deficit is a result of trade with China. The US trade deficit with China is roughly $375 billion, 66% of the total US deficit. If the US managed to eliminate its trade deficit with every country in the world expect China, it would still have the largest trade deficit in the world.

The rarely discussed truth of the matter is that, in addition to a host of non-tariff trade barriers and intellectual property theft, Chinese import tariffs are over twice as high as import tariffs in the US. That the Chinese feel the need to maintain such high import barriers, despite their huge trade surplus and far lower manufacturing costs, is remarkable. They are trying to protect their high tech industries from American competition while denying the US the same privilege.

https://i1.wp.com/thesoundingline.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Weighted-Average-Import-Tariffs-Around-the-World-2016-web.jpg

About 19% of Chinese exports go to the US, making the US the largest export destination for Chinese goods. Conversely, only about 8% of US exports go to China, the third largest export destination for the US. Furthermore, trade represent a significantly larger piece of the Chinese economy than it does in the US. Chinese exports to the US are also generally products that can be manufactured in other lower labor cost economies such as India, Taiwan, or Mexico.

Given all of these factors, China’s overt unwillingness to take any action to remedy a clearly unsustainable situation is likely to encourage, not deter, further American tariffs. It will be to everyone’s detriment, but mostly theirs.

Source: The Sounding Line

Very Important Economic Ideological Confrontation: Neil Cavuto -vs- Larry Kudlow…

Neil Cavuto is the defender of multinational Wall Street interests.  Cavuto’s boss, Rupert Murdoch has a well known insider nickname: “Mr. Wall Street”… The Murdoch operations (Fox News and Wall Street Journal among them) are ideological advocates for multinational corporations and historic globalist trade practices; to the detriment of the U.S. middle-class. That’s right, they are. Cavuto and Murdoch are also aligned with U.S. Chamber of Commerce President, Tom Donohue, in all things related to Big Multinational Trade.

In this interview there is a very apropos example of the twisted disconnect evident in the multinational corporate media perspective.  Please focus on the part that begins around 04:55 and listen closely to Cavuto:

…”and we’re really seeing the effect on the folks who have to pay the bills for this sort of thing … we’re already seeing soybean prices coming down; we’re seeing pork related prices coming down … folks are taking it on the chin, what are you telling them?”… etc.

There it is.  Did you catch it?

In discussing futures Cavuto sounds the alarm for “Soybean prices coming down.”  “Pork prices coming down”; and “the folks “taking it on the chin.”

Now, think.  What Neil Cavuto is saying is that U.S. food futures prices are forecast to come down.  In that scenario who exactly is taking it on the chin?

Who is it that Neil Cavuto sees losing out in his position?  It’s not the family going to the grocery store… they will see lower prices… so who are these “folks” losing out?

There it is.

Right there.

It’s easy to miss the gas lighting because it is so commonplace. Cavuto doesn’t even see himself doing it.

This is the twisted and controlled market being discussed.

Neil Cavuto is not calling for ‘free markets’, he is advocating for ‘controlled markets’, and his anxiety is because the “folks” he references as “losers” are the Multinational Corporations and Big-AG who control the Pork and Soybean market. Cavuto’s ‘consumers’, those he is advocating for, are Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Monsanto, Cargill, Unilever, Nestle’ and ConAgra.  Those are the names of Cavuto’s folks that he sees as “taking it on the chin.”   He is NOT, repeat NOT, talking about people who shop at supermarkets and grocery stores, ie. the middle-class. I cannot emphasize this enough… once you know how to spot this economic disconnect in the arguments by advocates for multinational corporations you can never go back to a time when you don’t see it. This is the most important economic lesson that most Americans simply do not comprehend.  We are in an abusive relationship, and most U.S. consumers don’t even know about it. If the U.S. were to exit NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the price you pay for most foodstuff at the grocery store would drop 10% in the first quarter and likely drop 20% or more by the end of the first year. Here’s why:

Approximately a decade ago the U.S. Dept of Agriculture stopped using U.S. consumer food prices within the reported CORE measures of inflation. The food sector joined the ranks of fuel and energy prices in no longer being measured to track core inflation and backdrop Fed monetary policy. Not coincidentally this was simultaneous to U.S. consumers seeing massive inflation in the same highly consumable sector. There are massive international corporate and financial interests who are inherently at risk from President Trump’s “America-First” economic and trade platform. Believe it or not, President Trump is up against an entire world economic establishment. When you understand how trade works in the modern era you will understand why the agents within the system are so adamantly opposed to U.S. President Trump. The biggest lie in modern economics, willingly spread and maintained by corporate media, is that a system of global markets still exists.

It doesn’t.

Every element of global economic trade is controlled and exploited by massive institutions, multinational banks and multinational corporations. Institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Bank control trillions of dollars in economic activity. Underneath that economic activity there are people who hold the reigns of power over the outcomes. These individuals and groups are the stakeholders in direct opposition to principles of America-First national economics. The modern financial constructs of these entities have been established over the course of the past three decades. When you understand how they manipulate the economic system of individual nations you begin to understand understand why they are so fundamentally opposed to President Trump. In the Western World, separate from communist control perspectives (ie. China), “Global markets” are a modern myth; nothing more than a talking point meant to keep people satiated with sound bites they might find familiar. Global markets have been destroyed over the past three decades by multinational corporations who control the products formerly contained within global markets. The same is true for “Commodities Markets”. The multinational trade and economic system, run by corporations and multinational banks, now controls the product outputs of independent nations. The free market economic system has been usurped by entities who create what is best described as ‘controlled markets’. U.S. President Trump smartly understands what has taken place. Additionally he uses economic leverage as part of a broader national security policy; and to understand who opposes President Trump specifically because of the economic leverage he creates, it becomes important to understand the objectives of the global and financial elite who run and operate the institutions. The Big Club. Understanding how trillions of trade dollars influence geopolitical policy we begin to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect.

That is, global financial exploitation of national markets.

FOUR BASIC ELEMENTS:

♦Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national outputs and industries of developed industrial western nations.

♦The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks.

♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s).

♦With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint. Against the backdrop of President Trump confronting China; and against the backdrop of NAFTA being renegotiated, likely to exit; and against the necessary need to support the key U.S. steel industry; revisiting the economic influences within the modern import/export dynamic will help conceptualize the issues at the heart of the matter. There are a myriad of interests within each trade sector that make specific explanation very challenging; however, here’s the basic outline. For three decades economic “globalism” has advanced, quickly. Everyone accepts this statement, yet few actually stop to ask who and what are behind this – and why? Influential people with vested financial interests in the process have sold a narrative that global manufacturing, global sourcing, and global production was the inherent way of the future. The same voices claimed the American economy was consigned to become a “service-driven economy.” What was always missed in these discussions is that advocates selling this global-economy message have a vested financial and ideological interest in convincing the information consumer it is all just a natural outcome of economic progress.

It’s not.

It’s not natural at all. It is a process that is entirely controlled, promoted and utilized by large conglomerates, lobbyists, purchased politicians and massive financial corporations. Again, I’ll try to retain the larger altitude perspective without falling into the traps of the esoteric weeds. I freely admit this is tough to explain and I may not be successful.

Bulletpoint #1: ♦ Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations. This is perhaps the most challenging to understand. In essence, thanks specifically to the way the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established in 1995, national companies expanded their influence into multiple nations, across a myriad of industries and economic sectors (energy, agriculture, raw earth minerals, etc.). This is the basic underpinning of national companies becoming multinational corporations. Think of these multinational corporations as global entities now powerful enough to reach into multiple nations -simultaneously- and purchase controlling interests in a single economic commodity. A historic reference point might be the original multinational enterprise, energy via oil production. (Exxon, Mobil, BP, etc.) However, in the modern global world, it’s not just oil; the resource and product procurement extends to virtually every possible commodity and industry. From the very visible (wheat/corn) to the obscure (small minerals, and even flowers). Bulletpoint #2 ♦ The Multinational Corporations making the purchases are underwritten by massive global financial institutions, multinational banks. During the past several decades national companies merged. The largest lemon producer company in Brazil, merges with the largest lemon company in Mexico, merges with the largest lemon company in Argentina, merges with the largest lemon company in the U.S., etc. etc. National companies, formerly of one nation, become “continental” companies with control over an entire continent of nations. …or it could be over several continents or even the entire world market of Lemon/Widget production. These are now multinational corporations. They hold interests in specific segments (this example lemons) across a broad variety of individual nations. National laws on Monopoly building are not the same in all nations. Most are not as structured as the U.S.A or other more developed nations (with more laws). During the acquisition phase, when encountering a highly developed nation with monopoly laws, the process of an umbrella corporation might be needed to purchase the targeted interests within a specific nation. The example of Monsanto applies here.

Bulletpoint #3 ♦The Multinational Banks and the Multinational Corporations then utilize lobbying interests to manipulate the internal political policy of the targeted nation state(s). With control of the majority of actual lemons the multinational corporation now holds a different set of financial values than a local farmer or national market. This is why commodities exchanges are essentially dead. In the aggregate the mercantile exchange is no longer a free or supply-based market; it is now a controlled market exploited by mega-sized multinational corporations. Instead of the traditional ‘supply/demand’ equation determining prices, the corporations look to see what nations can afford what prices. The supply of the controlled product is then distributed to the country according to their ability to afford the price. This is essentially the bastardized and politicized function of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is also how the corporations controlling WTO policy maximize profits. Back to the lemons. A corporation might hold the rights to the majority of the lemon production in Brazil, Argentina and California/Florida. The price the U.S. consumer pays for the lemons is directed by the amount of inventory (distribution) the controlling corporation allows in the U.S. If the U.S. lemon harvest is abundant, the controlling interests will export the product to keep the U.S. consumer spending at peak or optimal price. A U.S. customer might pay $2 for a lemon, a Mexican customer might pay .50¢, and a Canadian $1.25. The bottom line issue is the national supply (in this example ‘harvest/yield’) is not driving the national price because the supply is now controlled by massive multinational corporations. The mistake people often make is calling this a “global commodity” process. In the modern era this “global commodity” phrase is particularly nonsense. A true global commodity is a process of individual nations harvesting/ creating a similar product and bringing that product to a global market. Individual nations each independently engaged in creating a similar product. Under modern globalism this process no longer takes place. It’s a complete fraud. Massive multinational corporations control the majority of production inside each nation and therefore control the global product market and price. It is a controlled system. EXAMPLE: Part of the lobbying in the food industry is to advocate for the expansion of U.S. taxpayer benefits to underwrite the costs of the domestic food products they control. By lobbying DC these multinational corporations [Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Monsanto, Cargill, Unilever, Nestle’, ConAgra etc] get congress and policy-makers to expand the basis of who can use EBT and SNAP benefits (state reimbursement rates). Expanding the federal subsidy for food purchases is part of the corporate profit dynamic. With increased taxpayer subsidies, the food price controllers can charge more domestically and export more of the product internationally. Taxes, via subsidies, go into their profit margins. The corporations then use a portion of those enhanced profits in contributions to the politicians. It’s a circle of money. In highly developed nations this multinational corporate process requires the corporation to purchase the domestic political process (as above) with individual nations allowing the exploitation in varying degrees. As such, the corporate lobbyists pay hundreds of millions to politicians for changes in policies and regulations; one sector, one product, or one industry at a time. These are specialized lobbyists.

EXAMPLE: The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS)

CFIUS is an inter-agency committee authorized to review transactions that could result in control of a U.S. business by a foreign person (“covered transactions”), in order to determine the effect of such transactions on the national security of the United States.

CFIUS operates pursuant to section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended by the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) (section 721) and as implemented by Executive Order 11858, as amended, and regulations at 31 C.F.R. Part 800.

The CFIUS process has been the subject of significant reforms over the past several years. These include numerous improvements in internal CFIUS procedures, enactment of FINSA in July 2007, amendment of Executive Order 11858 in January 2008, revision of the CFIUS regulations in November 2008, and publication of guidance on CFIUS’s national security considerations in December 2008 (more)

Bulletpoint #4With control over the targeted national industry or interest, the multinationals then leverage export of the national asset (exfiltration) through trade agreements structured to the benefit of lesser developed nation states – where they have previously established a proactive financial footprint. The process of charging the U.S. consumer more for a product, that under normal national market conditions would cost less, is a process called exfiltration of wealth. This is the basic premise, the cornerstone, behind the catch-phrase ‘globalism’.

It is never discussed.

To control the market price some contracted product may even be secured and shipped with the intent to allow it to sit idle (or rot). It’s all about controlling the price and maximizing the profit equation. To gain the same $1 profit a widget multinational might have to sell 20 widgets in El-Salvador (.25¢ each), or two widgets in the U.S. ($2.50/each). Think of the process like the historic reference of OPEC (Oil Producing Economic Countries). Only in the modern era massive corporations are playing the role of OPEC and it’s not oil being controlled, thanks to the WTO it’s almost everything. Again, this is highlighted in the example of taxpayers subsidizing the food sector (EBT, SNAP etc.), the corporations can charge U.S. consumers more. Ex. more beef is exported, red meat prices remain high at the grocery store, but subsidized U.S. consumers can better afford the high prices. Of course, if you are not receiving food payment assistance (middle-class) you can’t eat the steaks because you can’t afford them. (Not accidentally, it’s the same scheme in the ObamaCare healthcare system). Agriculturally, multinational corporate Monsanto, ADM, ConAgra says: ‘all your harvests are belong to us‘. Contract with us, or you lose because we can control the market price of your end product. Downside is that once you sign that contract, you agree to terms that are entirely created by the financial interests of the larger corporation; not your farm. The multinational agriculture lobby is massive. We willingly feed the world as part of the system; but you as a grocery customer pay more per unit at the grocery store because domestic supply no longer determines domestic price. Within the agriculture community the (feed-the-world) production export factor also drives the need for labor. Labor is a cost. The multinational corps have a vested interest in low labor costs. Ergo, open border policies. (ie. willingly purchased republicans not supporting border wall etc.). Remember the example of China purchasing Smithfield foods?  In these examples the state-run economic operation of China operates like a corporation. [More Here] This corrupt economic manipulation/exploitation applies over multiple sectors, and even in the sub-sector of an industry like steel. China/India purchases the raw material, coking coal, then sells the finished good (rolled steel) back to the global market at a discount. Or it could be rubber, or concrete, or plastic, or frozen chicken parts etc. The ‘America First’ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focus exclusively on bilateral trade deals, with specific trade agreements targeted toward individual nations (not national corporations). ‘America-First’ is also specific policy at a granular product level looking out for the national interests of the United States, U.S. workers, U.S. companies and U.S. consumers. Under President Trump’s Trade positions, balanced and fair trade with strong regulatory control over national assets, exfiltration of U.S. national wealth is essentially stopped. This puts many current multinational corporations, globalists who previously took a stake-hold in the U.S. economy with intention to export the wealth, in a position of holding contracted interest of an asset they can no longer exploit. Perhaps now we understand better how massive multi-billion multinational corporations and institutions are aligned against President Trump.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/world-gdp-2017.jpg?w=401&h=700

Source: By Sundance | The Conservative Treehouse

Here It Comes: China About To Launch “Tens Of Billions” More In Tariffs

This morning the market has been on edge over, and traders are obsessed with just one question: how will China retaliate to Trump’s trade war and tariffs… further. After all, the initial response of a modest 15-25% tariff on $3 billion in 128, mostly agricultural, products, seemed laughably small and appeared to be more of a warning shot than a real response to Trump’s $50BN in Section 301 tariffs.

One answer was revealed moments ago when as we reported that China’s ambassador to the US Cui Tiankai did not rule out the possibility of scaling back purchases of Treasuries in response to Trump’s tariffs.

“We are looking at all options,” he said, when asked whether China would consider reduced purchases of Treasuries. “That’s why we believe any unilateral and protectionist move would hurt everybody, including the United States itself. It would certainly hurt the daily life of American middle-class people, and the American companies, and the financial markets.”

But the more likely reaction is that China will simply escalate with a “brute force” tit-for-tat retaliation, and as Citi notes, the editor-in-chief of the state-controlled Chinese newspaper Global Times, Hu Xijin, confirmed precisely that when he tweeted: “I learned that Chinese govt is determined to strike back.”

More importantly, he explained the confusion over the “disproportionate” $3 billion response, noting that Friday’s plan to impose $3b tariffs is simply to retaliate to tariffs on steel and aluminum products, i.e. a response to the previous, Section 232 round of tariffs, and has nothing to do with the latest round of $50 billion in Section 301 tariffs.

Instead, Hu warns that “China’s retaliation lists against the 301 investigation will target US products worth $ tens of billions. It is in the making.

Or, in other words, China’s real retaliation – one which is guaranteed to infuriate Trump with its proportionality and lead to further tit-for-tat responses – is about to hit.

As a reminder, here is a list of the main US exports to China, which – if this warning is accurate – are about to be crushed.

https://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/us%20major%20exports%20to%20china_0.jpg?itok=2jHng-ln

Source: ZeroHedge

***

Why China’s Soybean Tariff Changed Everything

“There simply aren’t enough soybeans in the world outside of the U.S. to meet China’s needs.”

 

***

Here Is The Full List Of 106 US Exports That China Is Targeting


China has just launched a vendetta on the US auto sector, and isn’t too happy with Boeing either…

 

***

All-Out Trade War: China Strikes Back With 25% Tariffs On $50BN Of US Imports

China has hit back at the Trump administration’s plan to slap tariffs on $50 billion in Chinese goods, retaliating with a list of similar duties on key U.S. imports including soybeans, planes, cars, whiskey and chemicals. Beijing’s list of 25% additional tariffs on U.S. goods covers 106 items with a trade value that is also $50 billion.

***

Trade War Round 2: US Releases China Tariff List Targeting 1,300 Products

“Stuff that you put on your body: spared. Stuff you put in your home: targeted.”

 

***

China Vows Retaliation With “Same Scale, Intensity” To Any New US Tariffs

China will retaliate to any new US tariffs against alleged violations of intellectual property rights with “the same proportion, scale and intensity”, its U.S. ambassador Cui Tiankai vowed on state TV overnight.