Jump to content

Talk:China–United States trade war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bobfrombrockley (talk | contribs) at 15:29, 6 February 2023 (→Requested move 29 January 2023: line break). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Wiki Education assignment: War and the Environment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fujia0801 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Littlee0804, Mtgravesande, Sparamin, Andrewk1998.

— Assignment last updated by Karanaconda (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section

To implement the suggestions for the lead section, would it be better to have it as just the first paragraph and then relocate the other paragraphs to other sections? Footballfan3570 (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Biden

JArthur1984, you may notice that the lead sentence has no connection to the body content. The lead sentence says the tariffs were left in place, but the body offers no elaboration on why. The body discusses subsequent Biden trade actions, which are common with every country and administration, but makes no connection to the Trump trade war. It is unrelated and doesn't belong in this article. Consequently, we can't keep the lead sentence unless it is specifically explained in the body. As it is, it suggests that "Biden agreed with the tariffs after all," when actually he inherited a predicament that had no quick means of exiting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=China%E2%80%93United_States_trade_war&diff=1124620659&oldid=1124619323

soibangla (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the body does discuss this: The Biden administration had not withdrawn Trump-era tariffs on Chinese imports, as of September 2022. In fact, the Democratic administration has introduced a number of new export limits... —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but the sources don't show those things are related. Someone is trying to make them seem so. soibangla (talk) 19:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with @Mx. Granger. I'm not sure how we could carve additional export limits out of the continuing trade war. I think my suggestion to reach the overall point that I perceive you want to make is not deletion, but would be adding a statement, citing a reliable source, that says something along the lines of "Although Biden has continued the trump era tariffs established during the trade war, his freedom of action is constrained because of X, Y, or Z." JArthur1984 (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object to adding such a statement for clarification, but the lead sentence suggests Biden continued Trump's tariffs by choice, but the body discusses other Biden trade measures. It suggests Biden acknowledged "Trump was right all along" (a narrative I have heard elsewhere that has found its way here) when actually Biden has pivoted to a different approach with China. The term "In fact" above tends to suggest Biden has doubled-down on Trump's policy. But really the Biden policy does not belong in this article at all because it suggests Biden has done the same thing Trump did. He has not. This article is specifically about a tariff war that Trump declared. soibangla (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The trade war and tariffs have continued under Biden, according to reliable sources like this one (cited in the lead) and others[1][2][3]. This article would be incomplete if it did not cover that. That said, I agree the material in the body should be improved – the Reuters and Business Times sources don't seem to discuss the sanctions in the context of the trade war. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree it belongs here, but if it remains it needs significant work. soibangla (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move → Trump trade war with China

Requested move 29 January 2023

China–United States trade war → Trump trade war with China – Trump initiated this trade war as a pillar of his economic and foreign policy, he campaigned on it and had been talking about it for years before that. soibangla (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Although true that Trump began the trade war and made it a part of his political rhetoric, the Biden government has continued the trade war. Renaming the page as proposed might suggest the trade war was limited to the Trump era. We would not want to imply an incorrect conclusion like that. JArthur1984 (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Following my comment above, the Biden administration announced that it would deny export licenses for US companies wishing to export to Huawei. See link.
    The financial times article linked above notes the Trump administration's tough restrictions, and goes on to say "Over the past two years, President Joe Biden has taken an even tougher stance on China, particularly in the area of cutting-edge technology. In October, he imposed sweeping restrictions on providing advanced semiconductors and chipmaking equipment to Chinese groups." JArthur1984 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said previously:

The core of Trump's rationale for a trade war, as he has said repeatedly since the 1980s, is that China is eroding American manufacturing and its working-class jobs and the effect on wages, but everyone has been concerned about China's military expansion and access to technology that enables it. They're separate issues.

soibangla (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there recent sources characterizing the current situation as a trade war? The classic trajectory of a bilateral trade war is escalation to a stalemate, with no winner and no appetite for either country to continue pummeling each other, hence the ceasefire in Jan 2020. We have since been in stasis, but the war ended in 2020. It may have resumed had Trump been reelected, because the Jan 2020 deal was called "Phase 1," but neither Biden nor China have taken action to resume it. soibangla (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC) soibangla (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. So for example, just something I can readily pull off my bookshelves is C. Fred Bergsten's 2022 The United States vs. China: The Quest for Global Economic Leadership. Like other sources, it is clear that Trump is the one who started the trade war, but it is discussed in terms of a trade war begun by Trump, not a "Trump trade war." JArthur1984 (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't have that book and cannot see what it specifically says that supports your position. People have been writing for decades about the rise of China as an economic power, all sorts of arguments have been made. I disagree with your rationale for restoring the Jan 2023 content[4], as trade actions happen all the time, for myriad reasons, so will we treat this as an endless war and include every trade action regarding China forever more, until a formal treaty is signed? Maybe we should consider creating United States trade policy with China instead. The core of Trump's rationale for a trade war, as he has said repeatedly since the 1980s, is that China is eroding American manufacturing and its working-class jobs and the effect on wages, but everyone has been concerned about China's military expansion and access to technology that enables it. They're separate issues. Trump started the trade war, it failed, the shooting stopped in Jan 2020 and the war ended and has not resumed. It is a fallacy that "Biden continued Trump's trade war, proving Trump was right all along, and everyone else was wrong at the time" and I suspect it is more than just a little bit typical political rhetoric from those who don't want to acknowledge that one of Trump's signature policies failed, just as nearly every trade expert warned it would, based on literally centuries of examples. soibangla (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not subscribe to the fallacy you identify. Biden's continuation of the trade war does not mean that Trump was right all along. It means that Biden is continuing the same errors. The current page title does not suggest the fallacy, however. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Biden is continuing the same errors is incorrect. Trump initiated and escalated, Biden has not. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Seems like an odd title to me. This article is about an economic conflict between two countries, not between a country and an individual, and anyway the trade war has continued under Biden. But the important question is which phrase better reflects how reliable sources describe the trade war. I see lots of sources using some variation of the current title[5][6][7] and not many with the phrase "Trump trade war with China". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we call them United States tariffs or Trump tariffs? Two of your sources are pre-Biden, and the third talks about the effects of the trade war on Vietnam, with 24 references to Trump but only 3 to Biden, who would not be in his current dilemma had Trump not placed him in it. soibangla (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both "Trump trade war" and "Trump tariffs" are unencyclopedic. —  AjaxSmack  03:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tariff in United States history is the page for "United States tariffs," its got to be a more specific name because there have been a lot of them. Not aware of a large number of China–United States trade wars. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we should consider a global perspective, but from the Chinese foreign ministry? soibangla (talk) 16:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The usage in government discourse is also meaningful. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese government has every incentive to make sweeping and inflammatory statements about every American policy they dislike, particularly the intent to deprive China of advanced technology for their military, but it does not help us to better understand this specific episode. soibangla (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does naming it "Trump trade war with China," kinda does the opposite in fact by making it seem like the underlying issue is Trump and not systemic competition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[8] soibangla (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt you believe it, I just know that it isn't true, those aren't separate issues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Counterproductive tariffs intended to boost American manufacturing, and American opposition toward a rising military challenge, are distinct issues. There is broad and bipartisan support for the latter, there is very narrow support for the former. soibangla (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the article for the tariffs, you can find that at Trump tariffs. Do you have an argument that applies to this article which is about the *ongoing* trade war between the United States and China? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a trade war that began in Jan 2018 and effectively ended in Jan 2020 with the "Phase 1" deal, when a ceasefire was put in place, or at the latest Dec 2021, when Phase 1 formally expired. Had Trump been reelected, we might now be in Phase 2, but he was not and no Phase 2 has commenced. We now have a government that has not reinstated or escalated that trade war, but rather has addressed national security concerns that has broad and bipartisan support. This trade war has discrete start and end dates: Jan 2018 and, at the latest, Dec 2021. soibangla (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article appears to be about an ongoing trade war, which is why it has a section entitled "Biden administration restrictions." If you have a source which says it ended that would be helpful, none of the ones we currently use say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says Phase 1 expired in Dec 2021, it is sourced, and there was no activity between the Jan 2020 ceasefire and that expiration date. There is no ongoing trade war. soibangla (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Chronology has sections for 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. A lot has happened since Dec 2021. Are you saying that all that material needs to be removed because it isn't what this article is about? Note that the source the expiration of Phase 1 is to does not say that the trade war has ended, that would appear to be WP:OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot has happened since Dec 2021 but none of it relates to a continuation of the trade war that ended no later than Dec 2021, so yes, those years should be removed. This article is about Trump's trade war. It is a unique and discrete episode. soibangla (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is pretty obviously not the current consensus. If that's the way you want to go you're going to have to open a new discussion. Changing the name won't change the suitability of underlying content because the topic itself doesn't change, just the name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The matter hasn't come up before. You asked me a specific question and I answered it. Maybe I'll open a discussion to remove that content, maybe not. This was Trump's trade war and it is not ongoing.soibangla (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All governments have these incentives. Horse makes a good point above about not obscuring the systemic issues through our article titling. At end of day, this is all in the context of a move discussion, not trying to come to an analytic judgment about the substance of the trade war. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We always make an analytic judgment about the substance of an article when we entitle it, and the substance of this article is a trade war to boost American manufacturing and employment, as Trump had been promoting for decades. No one else had tried this before because they knew it would fail, and it did. soibangla (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Soibangla: So I could not find a systematic source to support my claim in the following, but from my memory, it is first generally called "the trade friction" (贸易摩擦) before about 2019, and then words began to be more and more fierce, and then comes "the trade dispute" (贸易争端), and finally "the trade war" (贸易战). If you want some sources about the trade war other than FMA, here are some:
I've also found some sources about some other names. i.e. "Trump government trade war", "World - U.S. trade war" (by Qiushi, 美国政府发动世界贸易战的实质与根源 The essence and root cause of the world trade war waged by the U.S. government), but now they generally use the "China-US trade war".
Some complains and jokes here: Chinese government already begin to censor fierce words like "death" and "kill", I guess they will eventually censor the word "war" so one day it might become "China-US trade mouth". --ときさき くるみ not because they are easy, but because they are hard 18:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Trump administration" suffice? soibangla (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Trump administration trade war with the Xi Jinping administration" is your suggestion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Trump administration" is much better as the trade war was not conducted by Trump as a person, but by him in his official capacity with the weight of the state behind him. The title has the benefit (vis-à-vis the current title) of limiting the topic temporally. Using "Xin Jinping administration" is unnecessary for this purpose and is inaccurate (as communist dictators don't have administrations). However, there's still the issue of whether it continued/-es into the Biden administration. As the article currently states that it did/does, the proposed title, with or without "administration", is inaccurate. —  AjaxSmack  01:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic remains the same, a new title won't impose temporal limits on the page. That has to be done separately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Trump administration was limited to 2017–2021. I'm not sure that's in dispute (yet?). —  AjaxSmack  01:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not limited to 2017–2021, changing the name doesn't change that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:China–United_States_trade_war&oldid=1137807490"