There is news of progress toward a trade deal with China amid a protracted and aggravated dispute. Both sides not only have tariffs in place, but on increasingly restrictive terms. Positive headlines, ahead of Tuesday’s Democratic debate, are a surprise.
Some of the issues seem intractable. There is commentary that China simply will not stop intellectual property theft, meaning use of products and methods that are protected by patent, or its practice of forcing foreign companies to transfer technology under required partnership arrangements. These problems are known sticking points for US negotiators. However, economists tend to remain adamant that free trade is preferable to all this; therefore the dispute can be labelled as political, with some specifically describing it as populist.
There is a ban on China’s Huawei, the world’s number one telecom supplier and number two phone manufacturer. Worries involve spying or espionage. Huawei is also one of China’s suppliers of equipment used for artificial intelligence surveillance. A recent bipartisan proposal in the House of Representatives would fund small and rural providers who replace Hauwei’s products.
Dr. Bill Conerly’s “Global Economy Forecast,” published on September 7th, does actually comment about Sino-American relations. The United States and China are key aspects of his concerns. Here is what a paragraph of the article says, “Resolution of President Trump’s trade wars would be a major step toward steady economic growth around the world…then look for a new trade deal to be reached in October or November, 2019.”
However, there had been headlines indicating further restrictions since. Then there was a decision to blacklist 28 Chinese tech companies last week, an action specified to be in response to human rights issues. Several of the affected were known to be involved in the development of artificial intelligence.
Key questions involve whether the incident deal really amounts to anything meaningful or what will be accomplished. Matters are still in a “Phase 1” or “Preliminary” stage. The status seems to imply that escalation will halt, even if de-escalation is insignificant.
The announcement of a deal is just ahead of the next debate between candidates for the Democratic Party’s nomination. It should occur at 8 pm eastern time, on October 15th. After that there is another set for November 20th. Commentary on the topical matter of relations with China should be captivating.
While bipartisan backing on policies toward Huawei may foreshadow differing opinions, there are indirect reasons to think that support of rideshare firms such as Uber will not be tenable politically. Consider my senator, Elizabeth Warren, who continues to be quite viable as a candidate. Polls show she and Joe Biden essentially tied as current leaders. Part of her platform is taxing the wealthy. She has paid two California economists to advise her on relevant initiatives, and the story made headlines earlier this year.
To be clear, there is no criticism of the plan or its authors here, or an attempt to praise merits. The persons behind the wealth tax proposal, to my knowledge, are among the most highly-respected in their fields. Notably, Hillary Clinton utilized New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s economic endorsement during her 2016 campaign, but ultimately lost to President Trump. Warren’s experts are on the other side of the continental US, in California.
The first of four actual contests between Warren and the other candidates is scheduled on February 3rd, of 2020, in Iowa. The next is a week later, on the 11th, in New Hampshire. Nevada follows on the 22nd, before South Carolina on the 29th. The tally of electoral votes up for grabs in February is 155.
California, which just passed a law about classification of workers who offer services through Uber, has the biggest prize in the Democratic Party’s nomination process: 416 delegates, out of 1,358 that can be won on March 3rd. Until this election cycle, it used to award its winner later in the process, during June. It is now scheduled to have its elections on Super Tuesday (any state trying to move up further would be penalized delegates). It remains to be seen if any candidate can lose the state and win!
The US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, intending to pursue legislative solutions to issues with rideshare companies, is holding a hearing Wednesday. Evidently corporations are not attending despite attempts by Chairman Peter DeFazio to secure their representation. While the issue of adequate wages is known to be topical, it sounds like allegations of sexual assault and predation are at least as concerning.
Can the Democrats’ process ignore issues specifically relevant to Californians, before a Congressional hearing, while campaigning? Candidates might clarify opinions on restrictions to the “Gig economy” and it makes sense that their commentary would be supportive of legislation that aims to help workers. China is likely to be topical on Wednesday also, though there is not partisan clarity.
Some of the issues seem intractable. There is commentary that China simply will not stop intellectual property theft, meaning use of products and methods that are protected by patent, or its practice of forcing foreign companies to transfer technology under required partnership arrangements. These problems are known sticking points for US negotiators. However, economists tend to remain adamant that free trade is preferable to all this; therefore the dispute can be labelled as political, with some specifically describing it as populist.
There is a ban on China’s Huawei, the world’s number one telecom supplier and number two phone manufacturer. Worries involve spying or espionage. Huawei is also one of China’s suppliers of equipment used for artificial intelligence surveillance. A recent bipartisan proposal in the House of Representatives would fund small and rural providers who replace Hauwei’s products.
Dr. Bill Conerly’s “Global Economy Forecast,” published on September 7th, does actually comment about Sino-American relations. The United States and China are key aspects of his concerns. Here is what a paragraph of the article says, “Resolution of President Trump’s trade wars would be a major step toward steady economic growth around the world…then look for a new trade deal to be reached in October or November, 2019.”
However, there had been headlines indicating further restrictions since. Then there was a decision to blacklist 28 Chinese tech companies last week, an action specified to be in response to human rights issues. Several of the affected were known to be involved in the development of artificial intelligence.
Key questions involve whether the incident deal really amounts to anything meaningful or what will be accomplished. Matters are still in a “Phase 1” or “Preliminary” stage. The status seems to imply that escalation will halt, even if de-escalation is insignificant.
The announcement of a deal is just ahead of the next debate between candidates for the Democratic Party’s nomination. It should occur at 8 pm eastern time, on October 15th. After that there is another set for November 20th. Commentary on the topical matter of relations with China should be captivating.
While bipartisan backing on policies toward Huawei may foreshadow differing opinions, there are indirect reasons to think that support of rideshare firms such as Uber will not be tenable politically. Consider my senator, Elizabeth Warren, who continues to be quite viable as a candidate. Polls show she and Joe Biden essentially tied as current leaders. Part of her platform is taxing the wealthy. She has paid two California economists to advise her on relevant initiatives, and the story made headlines earlier this year.
To be clear, there is no criticism of the plan or its authors here, or an attempt to praise merits. The persons behind the wealth tax proposal, to my knowledge, are among the most highly-respected in their fields. Notably, Hillary Clinton utilized New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s economic endorsement during her 2016 campaign, but ultimately lost to President Trump. Warren’s experts are on the other side of the continental US, in California.
The first of four actual contests between Warren and the other candidates is scheduled on February 3rd, of 2020, in Iowa. The next is a week later, on the 11th, in New Hampshire. Nevada follows on the 22nd, before South Carolina on the 29th. The tally of electoral votes up for grabs in February is 155.
California, which just passed a law about classification of workers who offer services through Uber, has the biggest prize in the Democratic Party’s nomination process: 416 delegates, out of 1,358 that can be won on March 3rd. Until this election cycle, it used to award its winner later in the process, during June. It is now scheduled to have its elections on Super Tuesday (any state trying to move up further would be penalized delegates). It remains to be seen if any candidate can lose the state and win!
The US House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, intending to pursue legislative solutions to issues with rideshare companies, is holding a hearing Wednesday. Evidently corporations are not attending despite attempts by Chairman Peter DeFazio to secure their representation. While the issue of adequate wages is known to be topical, it sounds like allegations of sexual assault and predation are at least as concerning.
Can the Democrats’ process ignore issues specifically relevant to Californians, before a Congressional hearing, while campaigning? Candidates might clarify opinions on restrictions to the “Gig economy” and it makes sense that their commentary would be supportive of legislation that aims to help workers. China is likely to be topical on Wednesday also, though there is not partisan clarity.