lundi 2 mai 2016

USA: élections,"M. Trump pourrait bien être capable de squeezer la Chine"

I02051617:50 - En matière de "commerce extérieur (cf discours de Washington), ses pouvoirs en tant que président pourraient le rapprocher de ses ambitions débridées et M. Trump pourrait bien être tenter de squeezer la Chine car le problème central est la manipulation des monnaies d'une manière qui exclut les Etats-Unis" rapporte The New York Times.

Le bien pensance new-yorkaise reconnait, malgré elle, forcée et contrainte, la vérité très inconfortable du projet politique de M Trump, en particulier son projet en matière de politique étrangère développé lors de son "discours de Washington". 

M Trump est sans doute l'un des seuls hommes politiques aux Etats-Unis à avoir compris que, contrairement au discours officiel, ce ne sont pas les USA qui isolent le reste du monde de la communauté internationale qu'ils sont quasiment les seuls (avec leurs alliés européens mais ceux-ci ne comptent plus) mais bien eux, les USA, qui sont déjà isolés sur la scène internationale du nouvel ordre mondial polycentrique, selon le concept poutinien

"Le problème central est la manipulation des monnaies d'une manière qui exclut les Etats-Unis" écrit le journal pour ne pas parler de la dé-dollarisation du commerce international. En réalité, ce ne sont pas les monnaies étrangères qui sont sous-côtées comme le laisse entendre les auteurs mais bien le dollar qui est sur-côté, et cela du fait de la planche à billet de la FED et, dans une moindre mesure, de celle de la BCE pour l'euro.  

Ces deux monnaies ne reflètent plus du tout la réalité économique des zones qu'elles occupent et sont devenues un leurre, une bulle, que le reste du monde est en train d'exclure de leur réalité économique qui va représenter dans les 10-15 années à venir la plus grosse partie du PIB mondial avec des perspectives immenses puisque ce reste du monde, comme le considèrent encore les élites US, représente près de 90 % de la population mondiale, le petit solde se répartissant en 5 % pour les Etats-Unis et 7 % pour l'Europe. 

Trump a le courage de mettre le doigt là où ça fait mal et, quelque soit la suite de son combat, ce qu'il a déjà réalisé en tenant un discours vraiment très inconfortable pour l'establishment US aura de toute façon des conséquences qu'il ne nous est pas encore possible d'imaginer mais nier en bloc son constat en le diffamant ne changera rien au message même si ses réponses actuelles ne sont pas forcément abouties. Là, il y a du travail à faire et des milliers d'emplois à créer pour résoudre cette question de l'ajustement des monnaies mondiales pour maintenir un minimum d'équilibre dans les affaires du monde tout en évitant une possible guerre planétaire. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Experts Warn of Backlash in Donald Trump’s China Trade Policies

By BINYAMIN APPELBAUMMAY pour The New York Times, le 2 Mai 2016

Titre et inter-titres E Gaillot pour €calypse News, le 2 Mai 2016


_____________***____________
Au cours de la campagne, Donald J. Trump a promis de faire pas mal de choses qui sont au-delà des pouvoirs d'un président américain, comme la facturation au Mexique pour un mur à la frontière. Mais quand il s'agit du commerce extérieur, ses pouvoirs en tant que président pourraient le rapprocher de ses coûteuses ambitions 
On the campaign trail, Donald J. Trump has promised to do quite a few things that are beyond the powers of an American president, like billing Mexico for a border wall. But when it comes to foreign trade, his powers as president would come closer to his expansive ambitions.

As president, Mr. Trump could seek to penalize other nations for undercutting American manufacturers, eliminating American jobs or stealing American ideas. He could also pursue congressional legislation to impose a 45 percent tariff, or tax, on imported Chinese goods, as he has proposed.
La ligne de fond, disent certains experts, est que M. Trump pourrait bien être capable de squeezer la Chine
The bottom line, some experts say, is that Mr. Trump might well be able to squeeze China.
Cela ne signifie pas, cependant, que son approche punitive pourrait soulager les douleurs économiques de l'Amérique. En fait, une série d'experts conviennent que les propositions de M. Trump sont plus susceptibles d'approfondir ces problèmes, surtout si la Chine ou d'autres nations lançaient des représailles plutôt que d'accepter ses demandes
That does not mean, however, that his punitive approach would ease America’s economic pains. In fact, a range of experts agree that Mr. Trump’s proposals are more likely to deepen those problems, particularly if China or other targeted nations retaliate, rather than accept his demands.
Le lancement d'une guerre commerciale pourrait être cathartique pour les travailleurs qui ont perdu leur emploi, mais il est peu probable que cela créerait beaucoup de travail en usine
Starting a trade war might be cathartic for workers who have lost jobs, but it is unlikely to create a lot of factory work.
je pense que cela pourrait être très destructeur pour le reste du monde
There’s no way a tariff of this kind could deliver the kind of benefits that he’s talking about, and it’s quite wrong to think that the big problem for American workers has been foreign trade,” said J.W. Mason, a professor of economics at John Jay College and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank. “But I think it could be very destructive for the rest of the world.”
M Trump soutient depuis longtemps que les autres pays profitent des États-Unis parce que les Américains dépensent plus d'argent sur les biens étrangers que le reste du monde dépense en biens américains. Et il a longtemps plaidé pour imposer des tarifs plus élevés sur les produits étrangers afin de fortifier l'économie américaine
Mr. Trump’s views on trade are among his oldest and steadiest public policy positions. He has long maintained that other countries are taking advantage of the United States because Americans spend more money on foreign goods than the rest of the world spends on American goods. And he has long argued for slapping higher tariffs on those foreign goods in order to fortify the American economy.
 Nos emplois sont aspirés loin de notre pays et nous n'allons pas continuer à laisser faire ça
Trade was the first policy issue Mr. Trump mentioned Tuesday night in a speech after his latest round of victories in five northeastern primaries.

Our jobs are being sucked away from our country and we’re not going to let it happen anymore, folks,” he said at a victory party in New York that night.


It emerged again Wednesday in Washington during what was billed as a major foreign policy speech.

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump hopes to sweep the delegates in Indiana and all but sew up the Republican nomination. Nowhere has trade figured more centrally than the Hoosier State, where the air conditioner maker Carrier opted to move operations to Mexico, becoming a recurrent feature in Mr. Trump’s anti-free-trade litanies.

China has prospered over the last few decades by focusing its economy on low-cost manufacturing for foreign markets. Exports to the United States soared, particularly after China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. American businesses and consumers bought $481.9 billion in Chinese goods in 2015, about one-fifth of all imports and the most from any country. But manufacturing employment in the United States has fallen sharply. A 2013 study estimated that China’s rise had eliminated at least one million domestic factory jobs.
Dans la campagne actuelle, M. Trump a proposé une taxe de 45 pour cent sur les importations chinoises et une taxe de 35 pour cent sur les importations mexicaines. Il a également proposé des tarifs sur les biens que les entreprises américaines produisent dans des pays étrangers
In the current campaign, Mr. Trump has proposed a 45 percent tax on Chinese imports and a 35 percent tax on Mexican imports. He has also proposed tariffs on goods that specific American companies produce in foreign countries, including Carrier air-conditioners and Ford automobiles.

Mr. Trump has said the threat of such tariffs would persuade China, for example, to modify the economic policies that he describes as providing unfair advantages to Chinese companies. Rather than incur his wrath, he says, American companies would be persuaded to keep more of their factories close to home.

“The 45 percent is a threat that if they don’t behave,” Mr. Trump said at a Republican debate in Miami last month, the United States “will tax you.”

He added: “It doesn’t have to be 45; it could be less. But it has to be something because our country and our trade and our deals and most importantly our jobs are going to hell.”
En tant que président, M. Trump aurait une certaine latitude pour renverser le cours de ce que la nation a poursuivi pendant des décennies. Mais les résultats pourraient être gênants sur plusieurs fronts. La suppression des barrières commerciales a joué un rôle important dans la réduction de la pauvreté et encourager la paix entre les nations
As president, Mr. Trump would have some latitude to reverse a course that the nation has pursued for decades. But the results could be troublesome on multiple fronts. The removal of trade barriers has played a significant role in reducing global poverty and encouraging peace between nations, achievements that could be eroded by tit-for-tat backsliding.

“The basic principle is that a sovereign state enters trade agreements of its free will, and it can get back out,” said Robert Howse, the Lloyd C. Nelson professor of international law at N.Y.U. School of Law. “But that’s the easy part.”
Depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les États-Unis ont réduit progressivement leurs taxes à l'importation et ont poussé d'autres pays à faire de même, non seulement pour promouvoir l'accroissement du commerce, mais aussi pour prévenir les conflits
Imposing sweeping tariffs would reverse a mainstay of United States foreign policy. Beginning after World War II, the United States gradually reduced its import taxes and pushed other nations to do the same, seeking not only to promote increased trade but to prevent conflict. The United States now imposes average weighted import tariffs of just 1.4 percent, according to the World Bank, among the lowest rates in the world.

Under existing laws, Mr. Trump could impose tariffs only on specific categories of imports, not whole countries, and only by demonstrating specific violations of trade rules, such as export subsidies. “There are at least 50 sets of laws and regulations that exist that China has, at least in spirit, crossed the boundaries,” Sam Clovis, an adviser to Mr. Trump, said in an interview.

But Mr. Trump would have the difficult task of proving that China is breaking the rules before the World Trade Organization, which polices global commerce. International trade laws limit the type of help governments can provide to companies, but the role of the Chinese government is particularly opaque, said Mark Wu, a professor of law at Harvard and a former United States trade negotiator in the administration of President George W. Bush.

“China’s economy is its own beast, and it has a form that was not envisioned at the time these rules were created 20 years ago,” Mr. Wu said. “W.T.O. rules are not necessarily equipped to address all of the problematic aspects of that China Inc. system as far as American exporters are concerned.”
En fait, l'une des charges préférées de M. Trump qui consiste à dire que la Chine et d'autres nations réduisent volontairement la valeur de leurs monnaies, n'est pas une violation des accords commerciaux existants. 
In fact, one of Mr. Trump’s favorite charges, that China and other nations are suppressing the value of their currencies, is actually not a violation of existing trade agreements.
Le problème central est la manipulation des monnaies d'une manière qui exclut les Etats-Unis 
A central problem is defining currency manipulation in a way that excludes the United States — in particular, the Federal Reserve’s post-recession stimulus campaign, which had the effect of weakening the dollar much in the same way that other countries do to their currency.

Alternatively, Mr. Trump could pursue the radical option of seeking legislation to impose a broad China tariff, in effect demolishing the rules of global trade.

“It would be a flagrant violation,” said Alan O. Sykes, a professor of law at Stanford and an expert on international economic relations. “There is no prior violation of W.T.O. law that would be even close.”

The impact of such legislation would touch almost every aisle at Walmart.

In 2015, Americans bought $14.2 billion worth of Chinese shoes, $2.5 billion of Chinese jewelry and $593 million of Chinese rugs. And, most of all, cellphones — $64 billion worth, according to the Commerce Department.

All told, the United States imported $481.9 billion in Chinese goods in 2015, a record.

But research suggests that the price of Chinese goods would rise by significantly less than 45 percent because companies would hold the line to preserve their market share. Consumers can also buy comparable goods. When the United States imposed a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires in 2009, imports of tires from China declined while imports from Indonesia, Mexico and Thailand rose sharply.

For the same reasons, however, economists see little chance that a tariff would achieve Mr. Trump’s goal of encouraging domestic production. They say it is even less likely to create large numbers of new factory jobs. American manufacturing output is at the highest level in history and employment has fallen because of large gains in efficiency, a trend that is unlikely to reverse.

China could retaliate by imposing its own tariffs. China responded to the tire tariff, for example, by imposing a tariff on American chicken parts.

The United States sold $116.2 billion in goods to China in 2015, including aircraft parts, automobiles and semiconductors — high-value industries in which workers earn high wages. Losing China’s market could mean sacrificing better jobs for less desirable ones.

Doug Oberhelman, chairman and chief executive of Caterpillar, described higher tariffs as “very dangerous” in February. “We’re 5 percent of the world population,” said Mr. Oberhelman, who spoke in his capacity as president of the Business Roundtable, a pro-trade lobby. “Ninety-five percent of our potential customers are elsewhere. We’ve got to learn and figure out how to deal with that.”

The damage to international trade agreements could also have deep and enduring consequences.
L'un des avantages centraux du système actuel est qu'il sépare les différends commerciaux d'autres types de conflits. L'effort mondial visant à réduire les droits de douane après la Seconde Guerre mondiale "a été imaginé comme un moyen de prévenir les guerres mondiales. Cela ne devrait pas être oublié
One of the central benefits of the current system is that it separates trade disputes from other kinds of conflict. The global effort to reduce tariffs after World War II “was dreamed up as a way to prevent world wars,” said Mr. Howse, the N.Y.U. professor. “That should not be forgotten.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Piquer l’ours russe” pour fournir une « base de guerre permanente légitime » avec la Fédération de Russie

« … les États-Unis, la Grande-Bretagne, la France et l’Allemagne (OTAN) se retireront du sale boulot de “piquer l’ours russe” – pour t...