For the first time in a long time, the United States and China are striking a deal to set up better trade relations for both countries.
After adding up the expensive externalities and the social cost, cheap stuff from China does not look as affordable as it does on the store shelf or the online cart.
The U.S. and China have such different economic and political systems and different sets of values. We may have to settle our differences through other means, beyond a trade agreement.
The Chinese have for decades banked on the world, and in particular its richest nation, prioritizing money over all else, including evidently its long-term national interest.
Yesterday, the EU’s Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, ruled that Jewish products made in contested areas of Israel must bear consumer warning labels.
When DreamWorks refused to cut a Chinese propaganda scene from a new movie, Vietnam and Malaysia decided to boycott the film. American consumers should boycott too.
Free traders have the same view of trade war as Quakers do of real war: that it is never the answer.
Free trade with communist nations will defeat every law we have. In a free market with an unfree nation, we have created a competition of systems, and bad systems will drive out good.
The EU may begin targeting businesses in Israel in the name of neutrality, but the ramifications will be anything but neutral.
The popular narrative goes that because President Trump launched a trade war against China, China has retaliated by tariffing agriculture products from red states that voted for Trump. False.
The ongoing economic brinkmanship between China and the United States is hurting all parties involved, yet no one is happy with the status quo.
What China did this week is the strongest counteraction it has taken so far in its ongoing trade war. It might have achieved the desired effect of causing market panic, but it will end up hurting China the most.
Don’t listen to the left scream that tax cuts caused a slowdown, and don’t listen to the supply siders who say tax cuts would be working great, were it not for tariffs.
Any political regime depends in part upon trust, and, when those in power do not live up to their commitments to the people, an appetite for change grows.
Chinese President Xi came to the summit with serious economic and political challenges domestically. President Trump was in a stronger negotiation position. So what happened?
A game where only one side plays by the rules is rigged. We have now locked ourselves in an embrace with a corrupt regime, and it has not been to our benefit economically or morally.
Tariffs can serve non-economic purposes. Although economically harmful, they can sometimes be used to gain political advantages that outweigh their economic costs.
Beijing has major risks to bear, too, if the trade squabble drags on for too long. Here’s why it would be in Xi’s best interest to reconcile with Trump.
China may well have been willing to give foreign companies wider access to its markets, but not to the extent of having those concessions codified into law.
- If CNN Can’t Take Punches, They Shouldn’t Be Throwing ThemCNN bashes conservative media on a daily basis, but whecontinue reading >
- How Trump Can Triple His Support Among Black Voters In 2020Trump is uniquely gifted to bring black America back incontinue reading >
- Virginia State Democrats Launch Into An Anti-Gun Law FrenzyThe Virginia legislature flipped in 2019, and Democratscontinue reading >