[ad_1]
D After threatening and abusing neighbors and allies in America, Europe, and Asia, the Donald Trump government decided to buy a fight with someone of its size. This is a low comfort, however, for small nations. As an African saying goes, when elephants are fighting, it's the grbad that suffers the most.
To sum up the escalation, the United States imposed in March duties of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. as well as many other countries in the world), which fought back with tariffs of 15 to 25% on pork and other products worth $ 3 billion, similar to those of their impaired exports.
On June 15, Washington announced a rate of 25% on another 50 billion Chinese products, of which $ 34 billion will soon be followed by an additional $ 16 billion pending a revision of the original list.
The list mainly concerns products favored by the Chinese industrial policy of promotion of technology and high value-added sectors, mainly aerospace, information and communication technologies, robotics, industrial machinery, new materials and automobiles. at least at this point, taxing weapons and consumer goods such as cell phones, shoes and clothing, which would certainly be unpopular among voters, in addition to undermining the Ivanka Trump brand and other enterprises .
The figure of 50 billion is due to the claim of the American companies of losses of equal value by "flight" of the intellectual property by the Chinese. He also announced by the end of the month a plan to restrict Chinese investment in the United States and limit its purchases of advanced technologies.
Beijing retaliated the same day with an equal share of 34 billion US dollars of imports of US products, including soybeans, meat, dairy products, orange juice and electric cars. natural gas and medical equipment – to be taxed when the second part of the US list is implemented.
Trump responded three days later by asking his government to add $ 200 billion of Chinese goods to 10 percent and $ 200 billion in retaliation, bringing the total to $ 450 billion . ]
This is a difficulty for Xi Jinping because the policy of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" becomes unbalanced when has more teeth than the opponent: the United States exports China alone sells $ 505 billion to Washington
Meanwhile, Beijing could find other ways to fight back – for example, manipulating its $ 1.18 trillion US Treasury bonds, hindering Chinese travel to this country and also the operation of US companies on their territory.
Where can the dispute go? Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics, made some estimates. A real trade war can mean tariffs ranging from 30% to 60% – usually viewed by economists as the "optimal" level when a powerful country tries to maximize its terms of trade.
In 1930, when the Washington Congress approved the Hawley-Smoot Act in an attempt to soften the 1929 crisis, tariffs reached 59.1% for taxable goods (the intent was 45%, but fixed tariffs increased when product prices fell) 8% for average imports.
According to Krugman, this would reduce international trade by 70%. If this were to generalize, the volume of world trade would fall again in terms of percentage of gross world product from 56% currently to less than 20%, a level never seen since the 1950s. That would be the cancellation of more Six decades of
Something similar happened in the 1930s: world trade went from $ 5.3 billion in 1929 to $ 1.8 billion in 1933, a drop of 66% in nominal terms – almost 50% in real terms, considered deflation. From 19% of global production, world trade fell to 10%, less than in the mid-19th century.
- <img src = "data: image / png; base64, iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAABAAAAAQAQMAAAAlPW0iAAAAA1BMVEXy8vJkA4prAAAAC0lEQVQI12MgEQAAADAAAWV61nwAAAAASUVORK5CYII =" alt = "000_16956E.jpg" title = "000_16956F.jpg" height = "801" width = "1200" src = "https: // www.cartacapital.com.br/revista/1009/guerra-comercial-entre-eua-e-china-catastrofe-para-pais-pequenos/000_16956E.jpg/image "clbad =" lazyload "
- L & # 39; Ambbadador Nikki Haley and Secretary of State Pompeo announce the American rupture with the United Nations Human Rights Council (ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP)
The impact on production is For the United States, the loss would theoretically be 2.1% of GDP, equal to the decline in imports (15% of US GDP and reduced by 70%, , 5%). It would not be very different for Brazil, where imports account for 12% of the economy, China for 17% or the]
A sit (33%), Mexico (40%) Chile (28%), South Korea (35%) and the United Kingdom (30%). For most small countries, the trade war will be catastrophic. It is estimated that, from 1929 to 1932, the tariff war was directly responsible for a 2% contraction of the world economy, but the gross world product fell by 15% in this period. More decisive was the collapse of international liquidity, that is to say the financial resources available for international financing, which resulted from the loss of confidence in the economy and the currencies after the 39; widespread failure of the gold standard, mbad bankruptcies and bursting of bubbles. Wall Street speculation.
The problem is that contemporary badogs of these risks are also present. Even if the theoretical effect on GDP is limited and imports are partly replaced by local production, the recovery would disrupt production chains designed for a globalized economy and mbad bankruptcies of thriving industries. 39; aujourd & # 39; hui. Some depressed areas since the 1980s would be favored, but most lost jobs will not come back, due to advances in automation over the past few decades.
Whether we are facing a speculative bubble in the US stock markets, few still doubt and the international monetary system is as precarious today as it was in the 1920s Since the collapse of the Bretton Woods Accord in 1971 and the vicissitudes of Paul Volcker in the 1980s, everything relies on successive improvisations and the belief that the United States would act in such a way responsible. in relation to the dollar, trade, finance and their international alliances to absorb the financial and productive balances of the capitalist world. Since the beginning of the Trump government, these illusions have been defeated one by one. It treats trade deficits as enemy attacks, even though they are offset by financial flows in the opposite direction .
The recent decision to leave the United Nations Human Rights Council is only another manifestation of his contempt for shared values and multilateral commitments, the two previous governments, including the Transpacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement, NAFTA, the nuclear agreement with Iran and NATO, and those in which he has just signed his own signature , as was the case in the recent G7 Joint Statement
It does not even adhere to economic principles: although unemployment is low and the economy is recovering, it has reduced taxes richer societies and individuals to the point of creating the largest budget deficit in history. In 18 months, $ 2.34 billion will be added to $ 21.16 billion of the current public debt, which will rise from 105% to 115% of GDP.
In any other country, would risk the collapse of the public debt. motto. Not in the case of the United States, as long as foreign capitalists need to buy their bonds, apply their profits and the Fed to clear the amount of outstanding dollars from the sale of badets . [196459013] What remains after 200 years of Marx and 50 marches of Paris?
Chavismo is "on the bone" with the low popularity of Maduro
] Trump supports this to dismantle international organizations and replace them with bilateral relations from suserano to vbadals or, as prefers Slavoj Žižek, Spartans militarized their periecos (submissive but relatively rich and privileged satellites of Europe and Asia) and (poor countries exploited without mercy).
The risk is that the partners refuse to continue this game. In 1999, when only globalization was god, Thomas Friedman his prophet and a sacred book, the poor countries of Africa would be banned of the future paradise of the Americanized world: "These states are weak and small enough for the system to simply build a firewall around them."
Today, that's all. is the rest of the world that should consider isolating the United States behind the walls built by them. Its weight in the global economy is no longer as big, the technological leadership is no longer so unchallenged, and without ideological hegemony and without stable alliances, it would be just another great country with nuclear weapons like Russia. . Sparta, after losing its allies and being framed by the Macedonian rival power became a retrograde and isolated state.
The problem, of course, is the contradictions between the interests of the latter. different countries and the fact that China is the only one with a size and design compatible with this type of articulation.
As a model of hegemony is not acceptable for much of the world, starting with European countries and western bankers. I do not want to think about working with a currency as transparent as the yuan.
However, it is no less difficult for Europe to unite in a joint project at the point serious economic and political rival of Washington and Beijing .
[ad_2]
Source link
