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.
Free traders have the same view of trade war as Quakers do of real war: that it is never the answer.
The political goal of handouts is another example of how Trump thinks he can throw around billions of dollars, seized by the government through taxes, to get whatever he wants.
While we hoped freer trade with the West would lead China toward liberal democracy, the result has been an increasingly oppressive government.
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.
The trade war between China and the United States isn’t a conflict that will remain confined to the economy. It’s a risky play in a new Cold War.
Calvin Coolidge was not quite the laissez-faire president he’s been made out to be, nor was he a servant of Big Business. The truth is somewhere in between.
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?
Tariffs can serve non-economic purposes. Although economically harmful, they can sometimes be used to gain political advantages that outweigh their economic costs.
Why the much-hyped deal between the United States and Mexico to avoid tariffs and crack down on Central American migrants is mostly window-dressing.
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.
Ben Domenech and Riley Walters discuss the U.S. relationship with China as both an economic and national security threat.
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 >
- Martha McSally Is Now A Dangerous Media Critic For Calling A CNN Reporter A ‘Liberal Hack’It was as if every member of the mainstream media felt continue reading >
- Rand Paul Is Right: If The Senate Wants Impeachment Witnesses, They Have To Call Hunter BidenDo Democrats really care about the getting to the bottocontinue reading >