The tariffs that President Trump has placed on Chinese goods have been, in a word, divisive. It’s hard to get to the bottom of hotly contested topics like this, which makes Gordon Chang’s insight on the matter all the more valuable. An expert on China, Chang is optimistic about the effects Trump’s tariffs are having:
“I think you can say the U.S. is winning because the Chinese are now doing things which smell desperate,” he added before noting how China depreciated its currency. By devaluing their currency, Chang argued, the Chinese made their products cheaper for U.S. consumers.
“So, effectively they’re bearing President Trump’s additional tariffs. So, when Trump says the American consumer is not going to pay, he’s correct on that,” Chang said.
Hear that? WINNING.
But wait, there’s more:
Through Trump’s tariffs, China has started losing its status as the world’s factory floor as currency depreciation has forced companies to take their factories out of the communist nation, Chang said.
. . .
“It’s not honoring the obligations that it has not only to the United States but to the rest of the international community,” Chang told Fox News host Bill Hemmer. “[Chinese president] Xi Jinping believes in a state-dominated economy where there’s very little room for foreigners … he actually believes in a semi-Maoist model … so Xi Jinping is driving events not us.”
So, basically holding China accountable in its international dealings was a GOOD idea, rather than letting them call the shots? How unexpected.
Lest you doubt the importance of all this, Chang explains that the ramifications of this trade war extend far beyond economics.
He added that China was using proceeds from the trade deficit to build up their military while senior Chinese officers openly talked about killing Americans.
“We’ve got to understand that this is not just an economic or a trade matter — this is a matter that involves the safety of Americans and indeed the sovereignty of the United States,” Chang said.
I’ll be honest, given my (very basic) understanding of economics and historical precedence, I thought these tariffs were a bad idea. But based on Chang’s analysis, I’m happy to concede that I was wrong. It’s too soon to make any definitive remarks about the overall success of these measures, but I’m optimistic.