China Is Facing A Dangerous Situation At The Center Of Trade Storm Between The US And Europe.

The United States frequently moves the Sino US trade issue to the spotlight.

What is more, the United States announced in May 18th that it would impose tariffs and other restrictive measures on China's steel industry.

To understand why the United States is afraid of China's strong performance, it seems to overthrow all existing economic systems, and we need to have some understanding of international economic and political competition and the international power of today's leading world.

Over the past thirty years, trade figures between China and the United States' two largest economies clearly show the reasons why the United States is uneasy about China.

President Obama said in 2015 that it is not the duty and responsibility of the United States to write the rules of international trade.

The author is very puzzled about this sentence.

Although WTO is based in Geneva, it is a product of the Bretton Woods system and is firmly controlled by the United States.

Therefore, the United States (not China) has been writing the rules of international trade.

China did not enter the WTO until 2001, and the relevant WTO rules established by the United States had already come into force in 1995.

The debate on the operation of the Chinese market has never been so remarkable. This is the result of western public opinion.

One reason for their hype is that China has resisted Western bullying for decades and is unwilling to allow western countries to do so, as in Africa.

Before Europe and the United States defended the market economy in the late 1970s, they built strong backing by means of the state's support for the economy, and built up ample infrastructure and good environment.

Soon, Europe and the United States began to bully other countries, including countries with unclear economic patterns and blindly following the European and American views, leading to large multinational enterprises to get these countries in their pocket.

The institutions such as IMF and World Bank established in Europe and the United States are the executors.

So far, only China is still stubborn resistance.

China has become a big country in the world and is the second largest economy in the world.

The "strange economic system" in the eyes of Europe and America has successfully joined its WTO.

Since China is in line with the economic conditions of accession to WTO, why should the European Union and the United States now conspire against China? China should continue to maintain the uniqueness of its economic system and provide other countries with deep mire with alternatives to Europe and the United States and the determination to resist economic hegemony.

After 1985, the trade balance between China and the United States has been tilted in one direction. China maintains a favorable balance of trade while the United States continues to suffer from deficit.

The change of the two governments and the change of many factors did not reverse this trend.

Since 1985, the United States has been through four presidents, but the trade balance between China and the United States remains the same.

To make matters worse, the relevant agencies expect this year's situation to be more pessimistic, especially in March and April.

The response from the US media is as fierce as ever.

Since Bill Clinton was elected president of the United States, China's economy and Sino US trade have become a hot topic in the US election season.

Recently, Obama often published an exposition on Sino US trade imbalance.

The United States has made an impression that China has some kind of magic to confuse the United States, which has made China profit from bilateral trade, and the United States is indifferent to it.

But if we look at the reality objectively, we will find that Sino US trade is not as good as what the United States says is "beneficial to China in all respects".

In the past 30 years, Sino US trade has undoubtedly made China profitable, and the data remained the same trend in the first quarter of 2016.

But is this the full picture of Sino US economic relations?

At the time of the US general election, the Chinese cliches of cheating, cheating and putting pressure on the United States on trade began to repeat itself.

The most promising Republican candidate, Donald Trump, is particularly fierce.

He called it robbing, saying that China had plundered the US in trade.

Even American politicians think this term is ridiculous, but considering that Trump used to use worse words to describe other countries and individuals, the name for China is rather normal.

Strangely, although the United States has been complaining about the status quo of Sino US trade imbalance, it has not made any move on this trend, which makes people doubt the authenticity of its Sino US trade data.

The United States does not realize that its own behavior is also part of the cause of today's problems.

When China's economy opened to the world, the United States invested heavily in attracting large population.

She rejoiced at the new cheap labor that American goods could be produced in China at a lower price and eventually shipped back to the United States.

The United States has made use of cheap labor in China, and sometimes even through tax avoidance and other control costs, to meet the demand of American consumers for goods, and the US economy's demand for productivity, maintaining social stability, and the United States has never publicly expressed this advantage from Sino US trade.

China has indeed benefited from it, but has the United States returned empty handed? Mutual benefit has always been the cornerstone of trade between nations.

The United States shows only a small part of the situation, and why the US attitude towards Sino US trade has changed from joy to complaint is still a question.

I believe that the US attack on China is more because the latter's economic growth exceeds the US expectation.

America's massive investment in China has virtually boosted China's economic miracle.

But did the United States not benefit from investment? Did she invest in China for charity purposes? Why did the United States only present the one-sided trade between China and the United States to the world? The world only saw trade data, but is the economic link between the two countries limited to trade? Of course not.

In addition to trade data, people should see the benefits of the United States from investing in China.

Why does the us avoid the investment of its citizens in China and the resulting capital appreciation? Why does the us not tell the whole truth of Sino US economic relations and stop covering up the facts? What are the gains of the US citizens who invest and work in China? Are Chinese and American trade related practitioners all Chinese citizens and no US citizens? WTO stipulates that the freight pport between countries should comply with the 40:40:20 quota principle, that is, two trade partners are responsible for 40% of the cargo loading and unloading, while another 20% are left to third party countries.

Has China been in violation of this rule for the past thirty years, and is strong enough to let the United States do so? Where will the United States put these gains, when will they disclose the truth to the world, and stop slander China on Sino US trade?

Recently, the top two presidential candidates in the United States have chosen the Sino US trade as an election weight as usual.

Like Trump, Hilllary Clinton also began to win voters' support by attacking China's argument.

In an article by Zackary Karabell, Karabell found the reason why the United States disguise the truth of Sino US trade.

Karabell asked in his article, "what if the United States always quotes the wrong data?" his position has supported my view that the United States is likely to deliberately quote these data to stimulate the American people's anger over China.

Otherwise, why is arrogant America admitted publicly in the US Census Bureau's official website? Since 1985, the US trade has lagged behind China every year, and the trade deficit between China and the United States in 1985 has been only 6 million US dollars, reaching its peak in 2007-2015 years.

Karabell further exposed the details that fit my view: "the main problem with these data is that every product is manufactured in a single country".

The rules of origin set by WTO point out that a finished product is attributable to the country that finally completed "substantial changes".

Nowadays, no matter whether T-shirts, Boeing Dreamliner, Nike shoes or apple mobile phones, almost one commodity is manufactured in one country.

Take Apple mobile phones and tablet computers for example. They are mainly assembled by Foxconn, a Taiwan enterprise located in southern China, and then pported to Long Beach port of California to enter the US market as an import product.

In 2010, 3 economists estimated that the US China trade deficit increased by US $200 every time Apple Corp sold a mobile phone in the US.

By 2013, the sales volume of single Apple Corp in the United States made China and the US.

An annual increase of 60-80 billion US dollars.

But are apple phones made in China? More than 10 enterprises in at least 5 countries supply parts.

German Infineon Technologies provides wireless chips; Toshiba Japan produces touchscreens; Broadcom Corporation produces Bluetooth chips to help mobile phones connect with wireless headphones or keyboards.

The concept of "country of origin" has been out of date, affecting people's perception of facts.

Analysts on Apple mobile phones or tablet computers in the United States finally.

There are differences, but they have no objection to Apple's biggest hero, the United States rather than China.

The design and marketing of Apple products are based on the Kuby Tino headquarters in California.

The biggest source of Apple phone value is not physical hardware, but individuals who innovate and provide creativity, design, patents, packaging and marketing services. This is also applicable to thousands of other high-tech products.

These factors make the contribution of the so-called "country of origin" to China insignificant.

The Asia Pacific Bank estimates that China's profit from every apple mobile phone or tablet computer is only 10 US dollars, but the mass production has expanded this profit.

The main beneficiary of China's reform and opening up is the United States.

Us outsourcing

Pour into China.

To a certain extent, the products produced in China are not sold locally.

In addition to the commodities mentioned by Karabell, there are more than 100 other similar products, which are produced in factories invested in China and shipped to the United States, including all televisions purchased by American families since the 80s of last century.

Because these products arrive in the US as Chinese export products, bookkeeper counts them as Chinese products.

But this is only trade data. They deliberately exclude other gains from the US investment in China.

At the time of the US general election, the European Parliament has determined China's time frame as a non market economy, which means that it can impose sanctions on China's trade.

However, the enforceability of this intention is doubtful, because there is no "European Union" in the countries that trade with China, and Obama's visit to Britain and Germany is not long enough to make the United States convenient and loud against the trade with China.

Those who share the same views with me will wonder whether trade with China is the topic of discussion between Obama and the two largest EU economies last month.

What is Germany's position when Sino German trade is favourable to Germany?

Although the European Parliament's decision stems from anti-dumping investigations against China, it is almost unworkable because China has trade relations with all EU Member States, not EU.

Each country has free will for its own trade and economy, and its relationship with China is no exception.

Moreover, the EU is just talking nonsense. It is doubtful whether it can find a market to replace 1 billion 400 million of China's population, especially when more EU enterprises invest in China and establish cooperation with Chinese enterprises.

The fact is that the EU's actions against China will have two-way effects.

In addition, it is unlikely that the US will withdraw from China's production lines overnight or prevent Chinese products from reaching the mainland because they have not yet found an alternative market.

However, arguments should alarm China and prevent them from being attacked for no reason.