SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ggersh who wrote (148487)5/14/2019 6:15:54 AM
From: TobagoJack1 Recommendation

Recommended By
ggersh

  Respond to of 218633
 
it is quite clear why Jetson Elroy champion the trade war iii (2018-2019)

it is all about deep-state ambitions, just as was trade war ii (1927)

the parallels are appearing, per playbook of history and calculus of geopolitics

deep-state is winning, folks everywhere riled up, and the market is not pricing in the likely consequences

scmp.com


China and Russia aren’t economic equals but, thanks to the US trade war, their partnership looks built to last

Until now, Russia’s relationship with China has looked decidedly one-sided, but Donald Trump’s trade war has changed all that, and Moscow could be a natural hedge against international pressure
Dmitriy Frolovskiy
Russia remains an attractive market for speculators of all stripes, while remaining less vulnerable to external shocks. The capacity to reorient trade to other locations – in this case, China – is another advantage.

The two nations today are arguably more aligned than at any point since the Sino-Soviet split of the early 1960s. Chinese President Xi Jinping has visited Moscow more than any other capital since he assumed power. Last June, he awarded Russian President Vladimir Putin China's first-ever friendship medal, honouring him as “my best, most intimate friend”.

Bilateral trade grew from US$69.6 billion in 2016 to US$107.1 billion last year, with China as Russia’s largest individual partner in both exports and imports. Moscow has also emerged as the largest supplier of crude oil, and is planning to supply 38 billion cubic metres of gas annually for three decades via the Power of Siberia pipeline in an agreement worth US$400 billion.


The liquefied natural gas tanker Vladimir Rusanov after its arrival at the LNG terminal in Jiangsu province, China, in July 2018. Photo: AFP

Russia’s largest petrochemical company, Sibur, also
targets China
as the main growth market for its polymer products. The company’s production complex in western Siberia, worth around US$9 billion, will soon be one of the world’s five biggest petrochemical plants, while another large-scale gas chemical complex is about to emerge on China’s board in the Far East.

While it is hard to underestimate the importance of China for Russia’s financial and economic stability and as its perfect trading partner post-Crimea, the partnership is nonetheless marked by deepening asymmetries.

Although ties seem strong and growing, Russia does not make it into the top 10 in imports and ranks 10th in Chinese exports. More than three-quarters of Russia’s exports are raw materials, while China sells back electronics and a variety of consumer goods.

This pattern concerns many in the Kremlin, as Russia resembles a raw materials appendage of lesser importance than Beijing’s other partners.

Data seems to favour such an impression. Although China remains the third-largest global source of outward foreign direct investment flows, worth US$124.6 billion in 2017, the Central Bank of Russia shows that Beijing FDI to the Russian economy was slightly above US$16 billion from 2011 through 2017. Despite close political ties, China remains extremely cautious about the Russian economy and invests primarily in minerals and energy.

Although the Power of Siberia pipeline aims to supply 38 billion cubic metres annually, China already imports more than 90 billion cubic metres each year, with most of the liquefied natural gas coming from Australia, Asean countries and Qatar. Therefore, Russia will not secure a monopoly on Chinese energy exports, but be integrated into broader diversification efforts.

This disparity in relations seems unfair to many in Moscow. Thus, the evolving US-China trade conflict could be a blessing in disguise for Russia’s quest to assert itself as a more reliable, even indispensable, partner.

Although China’s rapid expansion and closer integration into global trade patterns has delivered strong dividends, Beijing has also become more vulnerable to geopolitical threats.

The possibly of disruptions caused by trade war escalations and new tariffs or even direct tensions over China’s growing military presence in open seas might inflict serious and lasting economic damage. Trade wars can significantly affect such sensitive sectors as agriculture and petrochemicals, so Russia could emerge as a natural hedge.

Having a reliable supplier capable of withstanding times of international confrontation might be crucial for Beijing’s trade and energy strategy.

For instance, the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Malacca are some of the major international trade routes critical for China’s security, yet they appear to be extremely vulnerable strategic chokepoints. By contrast, Russian exports do not need to be shipped by sea and their value in times of possible disruption are difficult to underestimate.

The Russian style of political leadership is also more familiar to Beijing . Therefore, doing business and assuring delivery with state-run corporations such as Gazprom or the privately owned Sibur, of which a 10 per cent stake is owned by Chinese Sinopec and another 10 per cent by the Silk Road Fund, seems easier and more reliable.

As trade wars and tariffs appear to be the new reality in global trade, there is a strong chance that reliability in difficult times will outweigh existing asymmetries between Moscow and Beijing.

With Russia growing more dependent on China, political ties deepening and little chance of serious disruptions on the scale of the Sino-Soviet split, Moscow can be reasonably optimistic that its reliability and geographic proximity will turn into a major asset and solidify economic relations.

Dmitriy Frolovskiy is a political analyst and independent journalist. He is a consultant on policy and strategy, and has written about Russia’s foreign policy



To: ggersh who wrote (148487)5/14/2019 4:30:05 PM
From: TobagoJack4 Recommendations

Recommended By
abuelita
Cogito Ergo Sum
ggersh
Joseph Silent

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 218633
 
would say the Jetson best write Sven to stop Sven from thinking too deeply about the state is what-is

oops, I err. since Sven posts on zero hedge, he is automatically wrong

zerohedge.com

Did The US Just Lose The Trade War? Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

Did the US just lose the trade war? It seems like a ludicrous question to ask at this time as the US just raised tariffs on China to increase pressure on the negotiation process. The accepted conventional wisdom is that the US has the stronger hand to play as China would suffer more from tariffs than the US. That sounds good on paper, but is that really true in a three dimensional world with moving parts and conflicting timelines?



In many a fight match up the audience can get a sense of shift in momentum during a fight and as this trade war just shifted gears I can’t help but wonder if the momentum has shifted in China’s favor.

Let’s start with the reason for the sudden tariffs. Those came about because the US side was surprised, surprised by China’s apparent withdrawal from previous commitments. At least that’s the public narrative that is spun. Unless you’re in the negotiation yourself it’s hard to know. Fact is Trump, Kudlow and team led the world believe that a trade deal was imminent. It wasn’t. This move to escalate was not planned, it happened because team Trump realized they couldn’t get the deal they wanted or expected.

Being surprised and being forced to be reactive to escalate does not indicate a position of strength, but rather a position of weakness. And by reacting with tariffs Team Trump may have actually weakened their own position. Why? Because of inflation, time, and pain.

Let’s start with inflation: Despite Donald Trump’s repeated claims that China will pay the tariffs it simply is not so. US businesses and consumers are paying for tariffs which causes consumer inflation on the one hand and margin compression on the other, and perhaps a mix of both depending on what can be passed on.

But conceptually it’s literally shooting yourself in the foot.

Rhetoric:


Reality via Goldman Sachs:



Consumers are already paying for the tariffs and soon a lot more.

With new tariffs in effect the impact will broaden out:



The Fed’s going to cut rates (as Trump’s demands) if inflation suddenly jumps by 0.5% per the scenario above? Not going to happen.Indeed in this scenario the Fed may be forced to raise rates. Bull market over. Recession coming. What a mess.

Think the numbers are outlandish? Consider the math $AAPL is now confronted with. According to JPM Apple needs as much as a 14% price increase on iPhones to offset headwinds from scope expansion of tariffs or eat it with margin compression:



No, the damage from tariffs will be measurable and real and it’s not a long term winning formula which brings me to the second consideration: Time.

Someone will blink and I suspect it will be the US side. Why? Because for Trump there’s an election to worry about. The Chinese don’t have an election to worry about and that puts the time pressure on Trump, not the Chinese. The Chinese will continue to intervene and yesterday they showed backbone and followed through on retaliation. But because the US election cycle clock is ticking Donald Trump cannot afford a trade war extending into the end of the year, especially if the consequences of such a protracted trade war would spill into the larger economy.

A protracted trade war and associated loss of confidence has not been accounted for in earnings estimates.

Which brings me to the third issue: How much pain is Donald Trump willing to take with a falling stock market that he views as his measure of success. Judging from the daily jawboning: Not very much. Overnight futures jumped as Trump started the optimism train again for a late June G20 meeting and even this morning he’s out with repetitive tweet storms regarding China desperately trying to project strength:


If only the Fed would cut rates we would win. Way to go to set the Fed to be the fall guy if things go bad. It’s the Fed’s fault if we lose the trade war with China. Of course, nothing is ever Trump’s fault. It’s the world that’s evil and Trump’s trying real hard to be the shepherd:

No, the frequency of tweets and erratic nature of the tweets as Jim Cramer called themthis morning suggest Trump finds himself under sudden pressure given the big market thumping yesterday.

Again I ask: Why would the Chinese agree to a deal they view as disadvantageous? They’re not running against the clock here, Trump is. He may still have a few months, but delays of several months will bring about economic and financial market consequences the president can ill afford politically. And the Chinese know this.

Trade wars end when one or both parties are forced to cave on positions. That’s not happening yet and won’t happen with US stock prices only 5% off of the all time highs. And now with the latest bout the parties are being forced into corners. Neither can politically afford to look to cave to pressure and that sets the stage for a protracted trade war, one that the US may now look to lose. Why? Because Trump won’t get the deal he thought he’d get just a week ago. Instead he was goaded into raising tariffs and is now hurting US business and consumers in the process.

The upshot in all this: If the US caves sooner rather than later the price may be confined to the political, and result in a major relief rally, especially if tariffs are removed. What the specifics of any trade deal then are may not matter in the immediate aftermath. I’m sure Mr. Trump will present himself to be winner even if he got knocked out in the second round. After all, it’s the Fed’s fault.

But no trade deal and ongoing tariffs into the rest of the year? I think it’s fair to say markets have not priced that scenario in. Best hope somebody caves.

* * *

For the latest public analysis please visit NorthmanTrader. To subscribe to our market products please visit Services.