2016 US Presidential Elections

[republic_roi97]

@amoy are you chinese or any other origin chinese ?

 

[IndianHawk]

How Trump is good for China

Perhaps no country has taken more hits from Donald J. Trump than China. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump made it sound as if making America “great again” meant defeating China.

But much of the Chinese public supported him. And President Xi Jinping was among the first world leaders to congratulate him. Mr. Xi, in his message to the president-elect, expressed hopes of building on the “common interests” between the world’s two largest economies.

Beijing is looking forward to change in Washington. For the Chinese, the Obama era has been the most difficult period in United States-China relations since President Richard M. Nixon renewed ties in 1971. The Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, made its “pivot to Asia” about containing Beijing, aiming to strengthen and enlarge the American alliance system in the Asia-Pacific region while increasing America’s military footprint there. The pivot was backed by an economic plan, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a now-moribund trade pact created in part to isolate Beijing.

Since the end of the Cold War, from President Bill Clinton to President Obama, the United States has been trying to remake the world in its own image — building an American empire in the name of globalization. Through ever larger and more complex alliances and global institutions that the United States designed, Washington has sought the global standardization of rules in trade, finance and international relations. It has used political, economic and military might to push other countries to adopt electoral democracy and market capitalism.

China has refused to yield. While the Chinese have been great beneficiaries of this era, Beijing has engaged globalization on its own terms. China’s gains from globalization have helped turn the country from a poor agrarian economy into an industrial powerhouse within one generation. Yet Beijing has insisted on strengthening its one-party political system and opening its market only so much.

This approach is working for China. The Chinese economy continues to advance in both size and technological sophistication, so much so that China looms in the minds of many American elites as the most potent long-term threat.

But these elites fail to realize — and Mr. Trump appears to understand — that while they have been obsessed with the rise of China as a threat to the United States-led liberal order, America’s domestic political foundations have been decaying. The tendency of American elites to try to mold the world to their liking created a conflict in their own country, between Americans with power and ordinary people. The American empire was built at the expense of the American nation.

Globalization has benefited those Americans at the top with concentrated wealth and influence while the middle class has stagnated or shrunk. The country’s industrial base, the economic bedrock of the middle class in the postwar era, has been shattered. America’s infrastructure is in disrepair, its education system badly underperforming, and its social contract in shambles. It has 4.5 percent of the world’s population and about 20 percent of its gross domestic product, yet accounts for nearly 40 percent of the world’s military expenditures.

With Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, there may be some tough days ahead between China and the United States. Relations may nose-dive in the short run over trade, for example.

But in the longer term, Chinese-American relations could become healthier as the Chinese prefer a relationship with a United States that doesn’t try to remake the world. The Chinese know how to compete and can deal with competitors. What the Chinese have always resented and resisted is an America that imposes its values and standards on everybody else.

Mr. Trump’s America is likely to break from this pattern. He has shown no desire to tell other countries how to do things. China is run by competent leaders who are strong-minded and pragmatic. Mr. Trump is a resolute businessman with little ideological underpinning. Without the shackles of ideology, even the most competitive rivals can make deals. This is a new day for the world’s most consequential bilateral relationship.

The Obama pivot is failing. It was unable to produce a more peaceful Asia-Pacific region, and even America’s closest ally in the region, the Philippines, is abandoning it. It was a project in costly global policing at the expense of American national interests.

Beijing harbors no design to rival the United States for global dominance. But it is only natural that it seeks to reclaim a leading role in its Asia-Pacific neighborhood. China desires its own space to reach its development goals. At the same time, America with Mr. Trump as president needs to turn its attention to rebuilding itself.

In the long term, Mr. Trump’s America and China are more likely to work with each other than in any other period in recent memory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/how-trump-is-good-for-china.html

He also supports Japan and south Korea to have nuclear weapons of their own!
How the hell is that good for china. Infact it will be a nightmare.
The way I see it Japan must have already begun the process of weaponise plutonium (they are idiots if they don't ).
NYT still reeling from the verdict I see:biggrin2:

It's a delusion to think that America will pull back from Asia Pacific because where will it's forces go otherwise??

If he would decrease military budget that was a possibility but
Trump will crank up military budget even more with much more money US Navy will only increase deployment in Asia Pacific.

And even if by some miracle USA abandons allies like Japan and soko it will only lead to greater militarising by these nations.

 

[Razor]

He also supports Japan and south Korea to have nuclear weapons of their own!
How the hell is that good for china. Infact it will be a nightmare.
The way I see it Japan must have already begun the process of weaponise plutonium (they are idiots if they don't ).
NYT still reeling from the verdict I see:biggrin2:

It's a delusion to think that America will pull back from Asia Pacific because where will it's forces go otherwise??

If he would decrease military budget that was a possibility but
Trump will crank up military budget even more with much more money US Navy will only increase deployment in Asia Pacific.

And even if by some miracle USA abandons allies like Japan and soko it will only lead to greater militarising by these nations.

Apparently he also said that in the first 100 days he will label PRC as a currency manipulator.

Maybe it is good for china.

 

[ezsasa]

He also supports Japan and south Korea to have nuclear weapons of their own!
How the hell is that good for china. Infact it will be a nightmare.
The way I see it Japan must have already begun the process of weaponise plutonium (they are idiots if they don't ).
NYT still reeling from the verdict I see:biggrin2:

It's a delusion to think that America will pull back from Asia Pacific because where will it's forces go otherwise??

If he would decrease military budget that was a possibility but
Trump will crank up military budget even more with much more money US Navy will only increase deployment in Asia Pacific.

And even if by some miracle USA abandons allies like Japan and soko it will only lead to greater militarising by these nations.

Critique from newyork times about trump is like critique from NDTV about modi.

Best ignored.

At best there will be a movement within America similar to ours on "boycott Chinese products". At some point American public will realise that their 300 Billion USD trade deficit is what is facilitating Chinese economy.

 

[amoy]

He also supports Japan and south Korea to have nuclear weapons of their own!
How the hell is that good for china. Infact it will be a nightmare.
The way I see it Japan must have already begun the process of weaponise plutonium (they are idiots if they don't ).
NYT still reeling from the verdict I see:biggrin2:

It's a delusion to think that America will pull back from Asia Pacific because where will it's forces go otherwise??

If he would decrease military budget that was a possibility but
Trump will crank up military budget even more with much more money US Navy will only increase deployment in Asia Pacific.

And even if by some miracle USA abandons allies like Japan and soko it will only lead to greater militarising by these nations.

Agree with most of your points except the Japan Korea part.

No Uncle won't loose the bridle on them. For Japanese nationalists a "normal Japan" means "make Japan great again" free of American control so that Japan would rise to the same height as US and China.

Rest assured Japan or S.Korea going nuke will never happen. That would do more harm to Uncle than to China or Russia.

At best there will be a movement within America similar to ours on "boycott Chinese products". At some point American public will realise that their 300 Billion USD trade deficit is what is facilitating Chinese economy.

Nah, the trade volume of China -India is insignificant, $70 bil or so even dwarfed by that of China -Malaysia.

If a trade war breaks out , well, t's a double-edged sword. That is over 600 bil in total.

It happened before so nothing new. Let's wait and see.

 

[airtel]

How Trump is good for China

Perhaps no country has taken more hits from Donald J. Trump than China. During the presidential campaign, Mr. Trump made it sound as if making America “great again” meant defeating China.

But much of the Chinese public supported him. And President Xi Jinping was among the first world leaders to congratulate him. Mr. Xi, in his message to the president-elect, expressed hopes of building on the “common interests” between the world’s two largest economies.

Beijing is looking forward to change in Washington. For the Chinese, the Obama era has been the most difficult period in United States-China relations since President Richard M. Nixon renewed ties in 1971. The Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, made its “pivot to Asia” about containing Beijing, aiming to strengthen and enlarge the American alliance system in the Asia-Pacific region while increasing America’s military footprint there. The pivot was backed by an economic plan, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a now-moribund trade pact created in part to isolate Beijing.

Since the end of the Cold War, from President Bill Clinton to President Obama, the United States has been trying to remake the world in its own image — building an American empire in the name of globalization. Through ever larger and more complex alliances and global institutions that the United States designed, Washington has sought the global standardization of rules in trade, finance and international relations. It has used political, economic and military might to push other countries to adopt electoral democracy and market capitalism.

China has refused to yield. While the Chinese have been great beneficiaries of this era, Beijing has engaged globalization on its own terms. China’s gains from globalization have helped turn the country from a poor agrarian economy into an industrial powerhouse within one generation. Yet Beijing has insisted on strengthening its one-party political system and opening its market only so much.

This approach is working for China. The Chinese economy continues to advance in both size and technological sophistication, so much so that China looms in the minds of many American elites as the most potent long-term threat.

But these elites fail to realize — and Mr. Trump appears to understand — that while they have been obsessed with the rise of China as a threat to the United States-led liberal order, America’s domestic political foundations have been decaying. The tendency of American elites to try to mold the world to their liking created a conflict in their own country, between Americans with power and ordinary people. The American empire was built at the expense of the American nation.

Globalization has benefited those Americans at the top with concentrated wealth and influence while the middle class has stagnated or shrunk. The country’s industrial base, the economic bedrock of the middle class in the postwar era, has been shattered. America’s infrastructure is in disrepair, its education system badly underperforming, and its social contract in shambles. It has 4.5 percent of the world’s population and about 20 percent of its gross domestic product, yet accounts for nearly 40 percent of the world’s military expenditures.

With Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, there may be some tough days ahead between China and the United States. Relations may nose-dive in the short run over trade, for example.

But in the longer term, Chinese-American relations could become healthier as the Chinese prefer a relationship with a United States that doesn’t try to remake the world. The Chinese know how to compete and can deal with competitors. What the Chinese have always resented and resisted is an America that imposes its values and standards on everybody else.

Mr. Trump’s America is likely to break from this pattern. He has shown no desire to tell other countries how to do things. China is run by competent leaders who are strong-minded and pragmatic. Mr. Trump is a resolute businessman with little ideological underpinning. Without the shackles of ideology, even the most competitive rivals can make deals. This is a new day for the world’s most consequential bilateral relationship.

The Obama pivot is failing. It was unable to produce a more peaceful Asia-Pacific region, and even America’s closest ally in the region, the Philippines, is abandoning it. It was a project in costly global policing at the expense of American national interests.

Beijing harbors no design to rival the United States for global dominance. But it is only natural that it seeks to reclaim a leading role in its Asia-Pacific neighborhood. China desires its own space to reach its development goals. At the same time, America with Mr. Trump as president needs to turn its attention to rebuilding itself.

In the long term, Mr. Trump’s America and China are more likely to work with each other than in any other period in recent memory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opinion/how-trump-is-good-for-china.html

this is just an opinion of writer .
in USA media is not controlled by Government (like global times of China )...................so American media is not trustworthy .............

these Media houses Predicted victory of Hillary ...........

they are far from ground realities .

just wait & watch ......we dont know about strategies of Donald trump .

 

[airtel]

i dont thin

Agree with most of your points except the Japan Korea part.

No Uncle won't loose the bridle on them. For Japanese nationalists a "normal Japan" means "make Japan great again" free of American control so that Japan would rise to the same height as US and China.

Rest assured Japan or S.Korea going nuke will never happen. That would do more harm to Uncle than to China or Russia.



Nah, the trade volume of China -India is insignificant, $70 bil or so even dwarfed by that of China -Malaysia.

If a trade war breaks out , well, t's a double-edged sword. That is over 600 bil in total.

It happened before so nothing new. Let's wait and see.

i dont think USA will let them (Japan & Korea ) own Nukes ...............there are already American nukes in Japan .............American Nuclear submarines & Aircraft Carriers in SCS .

they will protect JAPAN & Korea ................if they refuse to protect JAPAN then Japanese can manufacture Nukes within few Months they Have all the technologies and material .

 

[OrangeFlorian]

7 Things Trump Must Do

• 

211 COMMENTS
TAGS Money and BanksTaxes and SpendingPolitical Theory

11/11/2016Mises Institute
[Originally published July 17, 2016. This letter was published during the campaign by Joseph Salerno, Mark Thornton and 25 other economists.]
An Open Letter to Donald Trump
We the undersigned urge you, the presumptive Republican nominee for President, to support a rebirth of free-market capitalism in the U.S. You have said repeatedly that you want to make America great again. We agree with you. And we assert that the most effective way to start that process would be to affirm your principled support for economic liberty, for open and competitive markets, and for a foreign policy that rejects both protectionism at home and interventionism abroad.

Over the last two decades especially, the U.S. economy has been saddled increasingly with burdensome government rules and regulations that stifle innovation and retard economic growth. Some of the more obvious examples are the massive command and control system put in place under the Affordable Care Act (ACA); the enactment of purposely mislabeled “free trade” agreements (such as NAFTA) that actually have harmed some U.S. businesses and destroyed jobs while subsidizing other politically connected firms; the failed so-called “War on Drugs” which wastes private and public resources and contributes to rising violent crime rates; and the expansion of inefficient and rights-violating environmental regulations that have hampered productivity and increased the overall cost of doing business; and, finally, the pursuit by the Federal Reserve of a pernicious decade-long low-interest rate monetary policy which has (again) created a massive speculative bubble in housing and on Wall Street … that is sure to end badly.

As a successful businessman, you must understand that these harmful economic policies of the past must be changed by the next president and Congress if the U.S. is to continue to remain efficient and prosperous. And you also must understand that the key to any economic rebirth in the U.S. is not old-fashioned Keynesian deficit spending, quantitative easing by the Fed, or the enactment of higher minimum wage laws. The key to any sustained economic recovery is the legal protection of private property rights and the adoption of free markets where entrepreneurs, alert to price and profit signals, guide scarce resources into their most productive use. Below we suggest a concise list of first-order public policy changes that could set the early agenda for your new administration:

First, the Affordable Care Act should be repealed in its entirety and, as you have already pointed out, any prohibition on interstate competition in health insurance also should be repealed. Health care and health care insurance should be left to the market.

Second, all recent thousand-page international trade agreements should be replaced with a single, clearly worded paragraph that allows any U.S. business (or consumer) to trade with any other business (or consumer) anywhere else in the world on terms that are mutually satisfactory. Period.

Third, you or the Congress should immediately remove cannabis (marijuana) from its current Schedule One prohibition status under Federal law; cannabis and drug policy generally should be left entirely to the states. (Ideally the entire Drug War should be scrapped and the production and consumption by adults of any “drug” should be legalized.)

Fourth, the federal minimum wage should either be permanently fixed at its current rate or reduced; legally minimum wages should be left entirely to the states. (Ideally, all minimum wage laws should be repealed since they cause job destruction.)

Fifth, the U.S. corporate tax rate should be reduced so that it is the lowest (not the highest) in the industrial world; ideally, it should be repealed entirely because it constitutes double taxation on shareholders of corporations who also pay income tax on their dividends.

Sixth, the Federal Reserve should be required by law to end all forms of quantitative easing and interest rate regulation now accomplished primarily through open market operations; interest rates for savers and investors should be market determined. In addition, the Federal Reserve’s budget should be determined by Congressional appropriations like that of any other federal department or agency.

And finally, as a long-run solution for our recurring financial problems and economic recessions, replacing the current inflationary paper dollar with alternative monetary arrangements that provide for a sound, market-based commodity money, such as the gold standard, should be seriously considered.

There will be Democratic as well as (some) Republican opposition to these changes. Count on it. But your job will be to hold fast to basic principles and persuade the opposition that long lines at airport security and rising health care costs are based on economic ideas that are totally misguided. Socialism and progressivism and crony capitalism have failed miserably.

We need common sense capitalism and you now have a clear mandate to initiate its rebirth.

Sincerely,

Joseph T. Salerno, Pace University

Mark Thornton, Auburn University

Henry Thompson, Auburn University

Jo Ann Cavallo, Columbia University

Dominick T. Armentano, University of Hartford

Christopher Westley, Florida Gulf Coast University

Murray Sabrin, Ramapo College of New Jersey

Thomas Tacker, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Peter M. Kerr, Southeast Missouri State University

Thomas DiLorenzo, Loyola University Maryland

Marshall DeRosa, Florida Atlantic University

Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans

Robert Batemarco, Fordham University

Samuel Bostaph, University of Dallas

Paul A. Cleveland, Birmingham-Southern College

Peter G. Klein, Baylor University

Thomas L. Wenck, Michigan State University

John B. Egger, Towson University

Douglas Butler, Texas Christian University

William N. Butos, Trinity College

Paul Prentice, Colorado Technical University

Butler Shaffer, Southwestern University Law School

Judd Patton, Bellevue University

Paul Gottfried, Elizabethtown College

Jim Cox, Georgia Perimeter College

Roger Clites, Tusculum College

Bruce Koerber, Divine Economy Consulting

 

[IndianHawk]

No Uncle won't loose the bridle on them. For Japanese nationalists a "normal Japan" means "make Japan great again" free of American control so that Japan would rise to the same height as US and China.

Rest assured Japan or S.Korea going nuke will never happen. That would do more harm to Uncle than to China or Russia.

Japan won't rise to heights of china or US .
Not in this century as they have a declining population and stagnation.
They know it. So they will seek asymmetric parity.
It's highly unlikely that USA will remove nuclear umbrella but doubt will hamper Japanese about future.
It's pacifism won't last long. If china Japan relation doesn't improve Hawks will prevail in Japan . Shinjo Abe is an example.

In a changing world uncle's capacity to control outcome will only diminish.
If USA can't stop north Korea going nuclear.
It's a fantasy to think it can stop Japan.

India and China too claim of peaceful rise while maintaining nukes.

So as to conclude
Japanese trust in USA is shaking.
Japan China tensions persists .

Logic dictates Japan should go nuclear.

 

[airtel]

How Donald Trump can wage a trade war against China
Nov 12, 2016, 05.33PM IST NYT News Service

[ KEITH BRADSHER ]

SHANGHAI: As a candidate, Donald Trump aimed some of his
most blistering words at China
, declaring that "we already have a trade war" and suggesting ominously that "we have the
power over China
, economic power."

As president of the United States, Trump can use trade - a cornerstone of his populist rise - as a weapon, with the potential to drastically reshape the world's two largest economies, as well as the companies, industries and workers who depend on their hundreds of billions of dollars in closely linked goods. But neither side may win.

Cutting off trade will not bring back the bulk of US manufacturing jobs lost to China in previous decades as it became the world's factory floor. Already, some industries that left the United States years ago, such as garment making and some light manufacturing, are now leaving China for even cheaper places. An
aggressive stance with China
also risks antagonizing an authoritarian government with its own brand of economic nationalism.

Yet the unsettling reality for Beijing is that Trump has a
variety of ways to get back at China
for trade practices that he, his supporters or people in the affected industries view as unfair. China sells a large array of goods to the United States that he can aim at for higher tariffs.

The opportunities for China to retaliate would be more limited. In the most basic terms, China buys less from the United States.

But China could make some strategic strikes at targets like Boeing, US automakers and American farmers. Beijing exerts tight control over China's airlines, for example, and sometimes steers contracts to Airbus, Boeing's European rival, when officials feel that Washington is uncooperative.

"Boeing complains, 'We have been pretty good friends with China. Why are we always a target?'" said He Weiwen, a former Chinese commerce ministry official who is now the co-director of the China-US-EU Study Center at the influential China Association of International Trade in Beijing.

Or China could wreak havoc on the vast yet delicate supply chain behind a wide range of products like iPhones and auto parts. Six years ago, Chinese restrictions on exports of obscure yet vital minerals led to a global outcry by manufacturers.

Early indications are that trade could take a more prominent place on the White House's China agenda, which under President Barack Obama was dominated by Beijing's territorial claims in East Asia and its influence over North Korea.

In a strong signal, Trump has turned to Dan DiMicco, a longtime steel executive and trade critic, to oversee trade issues during his administration's transition. DiMicco writes a personal blog, liberally sprinkled with exclamation points, that blames America's industrial decline on cheating by trade partners, particularly China.

"Hillary Clinton has claimed Trump's trade policies will start a 'Trade War' but what she fails to recognize is we are already in one," he wrote on his blog last summer. "Trump clearly sees it and he will work to put an end to China's 'Mercantilist Trade War'! A war it has been waging against us for nearly 2 decades!"

China over the last two days has emphasized that a healthy relationship would benefit both sides. On Thursday, Lu Kang, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, said, "It is in the common interests of both countries to develop a long-term, stable and prosperous trading relationship, and any American politician would take a policy in the interest of his country and the American people."

Trump's views veer widely from the free-trade positions of the Republican Party in recent years and signal a return to the more hawkish positions of the Reagan administration, which repeatedly went after Japan on trade issues. Since President Ronald Reagan, Republican and Democratic administrations have been reluctant to confront countries that may be subsidizing or dumping exports, either because the evidence is unclear or because of a risk of damaging diplomatic or strategic relations.

"This is the kind of stuff you learn in law school, and in the early days of your law career," said Alan H Price, a longtime lawyer for the American steel and aluminum industries at Wiley Rein.

When used, the measures were sometimes deemed ineffective.

In one rare example, Obama used his powers to impose tariffs of up to 35 percent on imports of Chinese tires soon after he took office. The tariffs prompted China to impose steep tariffs on US chicken meat and automotive products. Both countries complained to the World Trade Organization, which mostly sided with the United States.

The case resulted in the United States producing more tires, but imports from other countries rose even faster. And the Obama administration later became more cautious about challenging China with trade restrictions.

Any trade actions by Trump would face limits.

This year, he mentioned imposing a tariff of 45 percent on all imports from China. But he later avoided specifics - and he has limited power to do so anyway. The law allows him to impose tariffs of no more than 15 percent, and for as long as 150 days, on all imports, unless a national emergency is declared. Other laws allow him to impose tariffs on targeted goods.

Should Trump want to signal an aggressive stance quickly, he could move against imports of steel and aluminum from China. The Obama administration has been preparing to file a World Trade Organization case against China over claims that it subsidized aluminum exports. And the United States, Japan and the European Union already complain that Chinese government subsidies have produced a bloated domestic steel industry that they say dumps millions of tons of excess goods on world markets each year.

China is more vulnerable given the sheer amount of stuff it sells to America. For more than a decade, China has consistently exported about $4 worth of goods to the United States for each $1 of goods that it imports. Exports to the US represent about 4 percent of the Chinese economy; US exports to China are only about two-thirds of 1 percent of the US economy.

"We don't have many things in the toolbox for retaliation, because we export more than we import," said He, the former Chinese commerce ministry official.

Still, China could inflict pain on sensitive areas that provide US jobs, like Boeing's jetliners.

Boeing declined to comment except to say, "We congratulate President-elect Trump and newly elected members of Congress and look forward to working with them to make sure we continue to grow the global economy and protect our people."

General Motors and Ford Motor Co, consider China a big contributor to sales. They mostly manufacture in China to supply the domestic market. But much of the design and engineering work is still done in the United States. China could hurt the automakers by adopting domestic policies that help their big European rivals, notably Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz.

Other US companies may be less opposed to trade limits than in the past. Some US companies have been struggling to sell in China. Beijing has steered contracts to Chinese telecommunications companies after Edward Snowden's revelations about US intelligence gathering in China. And Chinese state-owned enterprises have shifted much of their investment banking business from Wall Street to homegrown rivals.

US farmers have welcomed Chinese purchases, but it is unclear how badly they could be hurt by any trade action. Chicken meat, soybeans, corn and other foodstuffs are commodities traded in world markets, and farmers are often able to sell elsewhere.

Chinese goods have long helped keep prices down for Americans. But Chinese exports play a shrinking role in holding down prices as labor costs rise in China and as rivals like Indonesia, Vietnam and India expand manufacturing.

China's biggest potential weapon is to disrupt the supply chains of multinationals by halting exports of crucial materials or components. But that could damage China's reputation as a reliable supplier.

"I don't think we will go that far at the moment, because there is a lot of room to negotiate," He said. "If we are forced too much, nothing can be excluded."
http://m.timesofindia.com/united-st...idget&utm_medium=ABtest&utm_campaign=TOInewHP

 

[airtel]

President Trump is good for India and bad for China, Pakistan. Here's why
By ECONOMICTIMES.COM | Updated: 9 Nov, 2016, 13:57 hrs IST

All signs indicate that Trump would cut down on the flow of cash to both these countries, who have basically been fleecing the American economy.
Donald Trump is at the Oval Office and the big question on India's mind is how should it open up to an American president who mimicked an Indian call centre worker in one of his campaign speeches?

Trump, in most of his campaign speeches, has railed against outsourcing, and has vowed to right trade imbalances of the sort that India currently enjoys with the US.

But Trump couldn't be all that bad for India, says former US diplomat William H Avery. Infact, the billionaire could be more of a problem for China and Pakistan, he adds.

Double whammy for China
China and Pakistan, Avery says, have been using the US as a cash cow for decades: China by running a huge trade surplus ($366 billion in 2015); Pakistan by soaking up US aid (more than $30 billion since 2002), while pretending to fight radical Islam. All signs indicate that Trump would cut down on the flow of cash to both these countries.

The US has lost five million manufacturing jobs over the past 15 years, while China has seen rapid growth in its manufacturing sector over the same period. Trump is electorally committed to bringing a material number of lost manufacturing jobs back to the US; the only way he can do so will be to offset Asia’s (especially China’s) labour cost advantage in manufacturing with a combination of tariff and non-tariff barriers.

Such a move would come at the worst possible time for China, when a decades-long credit-fuelled investment boom may finally be turning to bust. For China, the potential outcomes of a trade war with the US range from sharply slower growth (best case scenario) to outright recession, which in turn could spark political unrest and, in a worst case scenario, revolution.

Would India lose some technology and outsourcing jobs if Trump Administration abandons US free trade policies? Perhaps, though it is harder to slap a tariff on a piece of code coming over the internet from Hyderabad than on a piece of machinery coming over the ocean from Shanghai. Regardless, in the zero-sum great game of Asian powers, China’s loss is India’s gain. And China stands to lose big under President Trump.

Bad news for Pakistan
India’s other troublesome neighbour, Avery says, is also set to be a big loser in a post-election shake-up of US relations in Asia. Trump has called Pakistan “probably the most dangerous [country]” and has said that “you have to get India involved; India is the check to Pakistan… I would start talking at that level very very quickly”. This statement is a sharp reversal of tone from presidential candidates toward India-Pakistan relationship. Just eight years ago, Barack Obama was hinting at the US mediating in Kashmir.

Since then, as president, he has avoided talk of mediation and stuck to the long-standing Washington script of simply encouraging the two sides to “improve their bilateral relations”. Now, however, the man who could be Obama’s successor is tossing out that script and saying, in effect, Pakistan is a problem, and India is part of the solution to that problem: a profound humiliation for Islamabad.

Trump would be more likely than any of his recent predecessors to try to influence Pakistan’s policy by threatening to cut off US aid. Trump implied as much when commenting on the case of Dr Shakil Afridi, who infuriated Pakistan’s government for allegedly helping the CIA definitively locate Osama bin Laden in 2011; Afridi has languished in a Pakistan jail ever since. "I think I would get him out in two minutes. I would tell them, ‘let him out’ and I’m sure they’d let him out, because we give a lot of aid to Pakistan," said Trump.

http://m.economictimes.com/news/int...a-pakistan-heres-why/articleshow/55329942.cms

 

[airtel]

Donald Trump regime will be good for India, here are five reasons why


Sreemoy Talukdar Updated: Nov 11, 2016 16:56 IST

#2016 US Presidential election #China #Donald Trump #India #Narendra Modi #Pakistan #US #US election 2016 #US Presidential Election 2016 #US-India relation


One of the strangest things about the 2016 US presidential election is how little we know about the winner: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States.

To a certain extent, this is quite amusing given the excruciatingly lengthy nature of the campaign. As Emma Roller counted in The New York Times, "By Election Day, the campaign will have gone on for 597 days. In the span of which we’ve been paying attention to the same presidential campaign, we could have instead hosted approximately four Mexican elections, seven Canadian elections, 14 British elections, 14 Australian elections or 41 French elections."

And yet despite numerous articles and several hours of TV debates over the last 19 months, tragically, all we have on Trump is a caricature as grotesque as his naked statues.


Narendra Modi and Donald Trump

We know that he boasts about grabbing female genitalia, walks in unannounced inside changing rooms of beauty pageants, doesn't pay taxes, threatens immigrants and vows to ban Muslims. But apart from his scandals and moral failings what do we know about the man who will be the most powerful leader in the world? What do we know about his views on America's foreign policy, trade relations, geostrategic and geopolitical affairs — stuff that may affect us and the world around us — beyond a few broad brush strokes?

This is chiefly because the media never took "Trump the candidate" seriously and dismissed him as a clown on the sidewalk. It remained trapped in a self-created illusion even though Trump was moving up the primaries, caucuses and knocking Republicans off (and fumbling his way through the debates). The media gave him no chance. Cocksure in belief and cocooned in utter disconnect from the people on the street, the media mistook the affluent coastal cities, a few Silicon Valley tycoons and Hollywood superstars for America.

So, now we are saddled with the task of deciphering how Trump presidency would impact the world and India based on the scrapings from his campaign. In the absence of the vetting that the media should have done before he was elected to the Oval Office, we must, post-facto, try to piece together a coherent picture.

I believe there are five broad areas to focus on when it comes to the Indo-US relationship under Donald Trump. These would be (in no specific order) geostrategic affairs, trade relations, immigration and visa policy, the personal equation between leaders of the two nations and bilateral relationship.

Geostrategic affairs: Early reactions indicate that Pakistan and China are nervous about resetting their relationship with the US. That would imply good news for India because America under the Democrats had been very convenient for both. While Pakistan has successfully exploited its geostrategic positioning to blackmail the US into providing a perpetual line of credit, China has sucked dry US manufacturing jobs and runs a huge trade surplus.

Not surprisingly, both nations have issued nervous statements, warning Washington that any change in the terms of engagements will end up harming US interests. While China is concerned about increased American isolationism, Pakistan's nervousness stems from Trump's anti-Muslim rhetoric and his open admiration for India.

At this point, it is difficult to be sure just how much of Trump's campaign rhetoric will spill over and affect his normative thinking but any resetting of the US-Pak relationship should be good news for India. As Pakistan's foreign policy analyst Hasan Aksari Rizvi told Reuters, "America will not abandon Pakistan, but definitely, Trump will be a tougher President than Hillary Clinton for Pakistan... I think India will have a better and smoother interaction compared to Pakistan."

We get a peek into Trump's mind when he talked to CNN in Wisconsin about the cocktail of radical Islamist terrorism and nuclear weaponry that is brewing in Pakistan, or his assertion in an American radio show last September that Pakistan is the world's most dangerous country and the US needs to work very closely with India to check it. Again, one isn't sure how much of this he may successfully carry into the White House when he sits down with the Secretary of State and his policy wonks but this should give an indication to Islamabad that it may not be business as usual.

Hillary Clinton's presidency would have ensured a measure of continuity of Barack Obama's policies. For China, though, Trump presidency might be a mixed bag. While more duties and tariffs on imports may hit China hard at a time when its domestic economy is grappling with a slowdown and bursting of credit bubble still looms as a Damoclean sword, it would be heartened by Trump's assertion that he intends to reduce America's interventionism in global affairs. Translation: American submarines might not patrol the South China Sea any longer.

When that happens, sovereign nations affected by China's aggressive geopolitical ambition might veer towards the other great Asian power: India.

It would be pertinent to remember that at this stage, all of this is little more than guesswork and Trump is marvellously unpredictable.

Trade relations: Trump faces an incongruity of policies because the angry, forgotten men and women who propelled him to Oval Office demand a greater share of the economic spoils that globalisation promised but failed to deliver. A tiny few seemed to have gotten richer in a globalised world at the expense of a vast number of the discontented, and the inequality of wealth has caused an angry populace to install a protectionist leader at the helm.

Trump vowed, just like Nigel Farage (the father of Brexit) did, that he would slap duties, taxes and tariffs but in a world which runs on interconnectivity, that would mean raising costs of the nuts and bolts of the engine that drives America.

As New York Times points out, "the American economy depends on access to a global supply chain that produces parts used by innumerable industries, along with a great range of consumer goods. Mexico and China are central actors. Disruption threatens to increase costs for American households. Tariffs on China might provoke a trade war that could slow economic growth, while most likely just shifting factory work to Vietnam and India."

If America raises the cost of trade with China, India stands to benefit in more ways than one.

Immigration policy: This has been the biggest area of concern for Indians. Given the fact that we are witnessing a global backlash against softer borders and easier immigration policies, one may be inclined to think that Trump's term might be bad for India's IT industry. But the reality isn't so simple. Trump has been contradictory, at certain times he has been praising the contribution made by skilled Indian workers and at other times needling US companies for hiring them in large numbers.

As a report in Times of India elucidates, Trump said in October last year that he was in favour of bringing skilled foreign workers into the US, as long as they come legally. He repeated it in March saying how Silicon Valley cannot be run without Indians and that very smart ones educated in the US should be allowed to remain there. "Many people want to stay in this country and then want to do that. I think somebody that goes through years of college in this country we shouldn't kick them out the day they graduate, which we do," he added, according to the newspaper. Yet he has also canvassed for increasing the H1B visa fees to pressurise US companies into hiring domestic workers.

Overall, one gets an impression that Trump regime may not go for any radical overhaul of the system that has been working well.

The personal equation between leaders: Trump has never hidden his admiration for Narendra Modi and has been effusive in his praise for Hindus and Indians — though it isn't clear just how much he understands the fact that the terms are not synonymous. Speaking to NDTV during a fundraiser organised by Republican Hindu Coalition, Trump said: "I have great respect for Hindus. I have so many friends that are Hindu and they are amazing entrepreneurs. I have jobs going up in India right now. I have great respect for India. It’s an amazing country." He also asserted that were he to be elected, "Indian and Hindu community will have a true friend in the White House".

He even borrowed Modi's 2014 slogan during the campaign, tweaking it to "Ab ki baar, Trump sarkar" during an Indian American outreach programme. He has praised Modi's leadership, his effort to simplify the tax system through GST and on his part, Modi has carefully veered away from reacting to any of the controversies that dogged Trump during the election campaign. With a better personal equation between the two leaders, Indo-US relationship should remain on the path of a greater synergy.

Bilateral relationship: When it comes to government to government relationship, A Trump regime might be just what the doctor ordered for India, which is boxed in by an irritant in Pakistan and a formidable power in China. Indo-US areas of interest converge on a number of issues and Trump, for one, has not been hesitant in calling India America's "natural ally".

As news agency PTI had reported, during the Republican Hindu caucus Trump extolled India before a cheering crowd as "the world’s largest democracy and a natural ally of the US". He said, "Under a Trump Administration, we are going to become even better friends, in fact, I would take the term better out and we would be best friends... We are for free trade. We will have good trade deals with other countries. We are going to do a lot of business with India. We are going to have a phenomenal future together."

Indian wonks and political leaders should find it easier to deal with a businessman rather than a career politician like Clinton who carried a greater understanding of bilateral relations but also a huge baggage of past mutual suspicion. Trump, who still has large business interests in India, should be a refreshing change. On India's areas of foremost concern such as cross-border terrorism, Trump has taken a firmer stand than Clinton would have ever taken. A Trump regime should be good for India.


http://www.firstpost.com/world/dona...-india-here-are-five-reasons-why-3100928.html

 

[amoy]

In a changing world uncle's capacity to control outcome will only diminish.
If USA can't stop north Korea going nuclear.
It's a fantasy to think it can stop Japan.

India and China too claim of peaceful rise while maintaining nukes.

So as to conclude
Japanese trust in USA is shaking.
Japan China tensions persists .

Logic dictates Japan should go nuclear.

North Korea is a different story. It borders both China and Russia. Otherwise the US could have done a surgical operation to its nuclear facilities.

For this I do agree it's China's fault not to nip it at the bud before things get out of hand. Now it's hard, with millions of Chinese Koreans taken into consideration and NK facilities so close to the border.

Japan can't, with US bases and everyone's scrutiny on the periphery.

S.Korea would definitely go nuke too if Japan does- the chain effect.

 

[ezsasa]

For the first time since 2008 meltdown BBC is showing a news report on poorer interior America(as far as I can remember). Obviously the one they showed looked like a ghost town.

Looked like even america's closest allies are smelling blood and signs of weakness.

Trump has a tougher job at hand.

 

[IndianHawk]

North Korea is a different story. It borders both China and Russia. Otherwise the US could have done a surgical operation to its nuclear facilities.

For this I do agree it's China's fault not to nip it at the bud before things get out of hand. Now it's hard, with millions of Chinese Koreans taken into consideration and NK facilities so close to the border.

Japan can't, with US bases and everyone's scrutiny on the periphery.

S.Korea would definitely go nuke too if Japan does- the chain effect.

You are overestimating American hold on Japan .
It's a 5 trillion dollar economy. An industrial giant if it wants nukes it's going to have it . There are no two ways about it.

Russia China and America all can monitor it day and night that won't make any difference. It already has enough uranium and technology.
Sanctions won't affect it.
It's nuclear agreement with India too is a sign of changing perception.
If Japan is OK with India nukes it is basically making ground for its own nukes.

It's a question of political will.
A receding USA and an belligerent china together will make Japan choose it's future course.

Trump is not trustworthy if anything.
Now this is getting off topic so I shall stop argumenting here.

 

[IndianHawk]

For the first time since 2008 meltdown BBC is showing a news report on poorer interior America(as far as I can remember). Obviously the one they showed looked like a ghost town.

Looked like even america's closest allies are smelling blood and signs of weakness.

Trump has a tougher job at hand.

American interiors have been that way almost always. It's a vast land and it is severely underpopulated.

In fact it is astonishing American wealth that has been sustaining numerous interior towns which serve little purpose industrially or economically.

However demise of American manufacturing is a very serious problem.
May be trump policies of increasing tax on Chinese import combined with tax breaks for domestic manufacturing can make situation a little better.
But the fact is that labor costs in America can not be competitive unless they go for automation and 3d manufacturing which again won't create many jobs!!

 

[amoy]

It's a question of political will.
A receding USA and an belligerent china together will make Japan choose it's future course.

Trump is not trustworthy if anything.
Now this is getting off topic so I shall stop argumenting here.

No Uncle is not receding, nor would Trump adopt such a strategy.

The military industrial complex wouldn't allow it. A strong global military presence is a must to maintain US economic supremacy and USD as a dominant reserve currency.

Continuous US leadership is good for the world. Only that China would have a due share in a MULTIPOLAR world.

Donald Trump Scores Legal Win in China Trademark Dispute
November 14, 2016, 08:25:00 PM EDT By Dow Jones Business News

Just days after Donald Trump secured the White House, the real-estate mogul scored a legal victory in a decadelong trademark dispute over the right to use his name in China for certain services.

The businessman-turned-politician's application to register his Trump trademark to provide real-estate-agent services in commercial and residential properties in China, was provisionally approved Sunday after a yearslong legal fight.

Zhou Dandan, a Beijing-based lawyer at Unitalen Law Office, which represented Mr. Trump in this trademark issue and in other such cases since 2008, said Mr. Trump has become a household name, even in China, which could change the outcome in any potential trademark disputes in the future.

In 2006, Mr. Trump applied to register his Trump trademark in a slate of categories in China, including to provide real-estate-agent services in commercial and residential properties.

In 2009, the trademark office of China'sState Administration for Industry and Commerce, or SAIC, rejected that part of his application, saying the trademark was already spoken for: Two weeks before Mr. Trump's application, a person named Dong Wei had applied for it.

According to a document from the Beijing High People's Court, Mr. Trump was allowed to own trademarks to do business in a category that includes a variety of services in commercial and residential properties, including installment and repair of air conditioners, heating systems and escalators as well indoor furnishing and repair. However, Dong Wei, according to the court ruling, owned the right to use the Trump trademark to provide "construction-information" services, what lawyers described as essentially services by real-estate agents.

 

[ezsasa]

Donald Trump Scores Legal Win in China Trademark Dispute
November 14, 2016, 08:25:00 PM EDT By Dow Jones Business News

Gift to the president-elect Donald trump is it?
With love from China.............

 

[amoy]

American interiors have been that way almost always. It's a vast land and it is severely underpopulated.

In fact it is astonishing American wealth that has been sustaining numerous interior towns which serve little purpose industrially or economically.

However demise of American manufacturing is a very serious problem.
May be trump policies of increasing tax on Chinese import combined with tax breaks for domestic manufacturing can make situation a little better.
But the fact is that labor costs in America can not be competitive unless they go for automation and 3d manufacturing which again won't create many jobs!!

Consider China is losing manufacturing jobs to Vietnam Cambodia at 1/3 or 1/4 wages, and perhaps India.

Would Americans like jobs for a meagre $$$ in labor-intensive footwear or garment ind.? Even a trade war with China only results in shift of purchase to other foreign manufacture from China. How would that help create jobs for Americans?

There's "cheap labor" in abundance from Mexico just next door, and NAFTA, and millions of illegal Mexican immigrants. But competitive?

What is gone is gone?!

 

[IndianHawk]

No Uncle is not receding, nor would Trump adopt such a strategy.

The military industrial complex wouldn't allow it. A strong global military presence is a must to maintain US economic supremacy and USD as a dominant reserve currency.

Continuous US leadership is good for the world. Only that China would have a due share in a MULTIPOLAR world.

Donald Trump Scores Legal Win in China Trademark Dispute
November 14, 2016, 08:25:00 PM EDT By Dow Jones Business News

I posted that before too that Trump us going to increase military budget if you could read previous posts.
I also wrote Americans can't leave Asia Pacific because they have no other place to be!!

It's a game of perception you see.
Question is not that of American presence. But of American willingness to actually jump in conflict to rescue the allies.

Trump has disrupted that perception already.

China's share in multipolar world will take shape with accordance to how much share china willing to concede to other powers. No??

Chinese antics in NSG for example reminds us of USA antics against china . It's trying to deny India a seat at table. MULTIPOLAR world might become a multi fracture world this way .