Chinese Companies Need Not Fear US Election
What choices will President Obama make in regard to Chinese investments? Last year, during President Hu Jintao's visit to the U.S., Obama had said business opportunities in the U.S. were limitless, and that he hoped to continue to tap into the potential of Sino-U.S. trade. However, faced with the pressure in the general election, Obama denied Sany, a private enterprise, a U.S. wind power project on the grounds of “national security.”
One the one hand, there is the expectation of further cooperation within Sino-U.S. trade, but on the other hand there was the refusal to bring in a powerful Chinese enterprise investment. Obama’s paradoxical methods are really not surprising; as he faces the aggressive posture of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, he is also bringing a “tough on China” attitude to the fight. Because he refused Sany, the company brought up a lawsuit against the government.
In the first presidential debate on the 3rd, the economy was the hot topic. But sadly, neither Obama nor Romney gave any solutions to recover the U.S. economy.
The U.S. economy does not punish China as a way to solve its issues. As the largest holder of its debt, China is one key player in the U.S. economy that the U.S. cannot live without. In addition, the development of economic globalization trend became irreversible long ago. Chinese and U.S. interests are intertwined; economic and trade interdependence has already been formed. Despite the difficulty of global economic recovery, Sino-U.S. trade still managed to buck the trend. According to Chinese Ministry of Commerce statistics, in 2011, the Sino-U.S. trade volume reached $446.7 billion, a record high. U.S. exports to China exceeded the $100 billion mark, reaching $122.2 billion. This was an increase of 20 percent over the same period. China and the U.S. have become each other's largest trading partners. If the U.S. were to punish such an important partner, it would inevitably hurt itself.
For the U.S. itself, the real need is to address the looming problem of the “fiscal cliff.” When the extension of the George W. Bush administration’s tax cut plan and long-term unemployment benefit policies are up, either government debt or another instance of "peaking" and going back to laissez-faire development will be a direct blow to U.S. future economic growth. U.S. trade protectionism against China, with the exception of reaping political benefits, cannot fundamentally solve the current economic predicament.
In reality, Romney and Obama are not at all aware of this. Even though both of them have recently been speaking of China in a critical light, during the first presidential debate, Obama almost never directly spoke of China and Romney only brought up China a couple of times. Moreover their criticism towards China was not heated. It is clear that the two men’s “critical stance” on China is only lip-service for the general election.
Sany is using the law to fight for its rights. As for other Chinese companies, they must face the challenge head-on in the same way, by using their position to take active steps to play an important role in the U.S. economy. Why should they fear the U.S. general election creating difficulties for them?
One the one hand, there is the expectation of further cooperation within Sino-U.S. trade, but on the other hand there was the refusal to bring in a powerful Chinese enterprise investment. Obama’s paradoxical methods are really not surprising; as he faces the aggressive posture of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, he is also bringing a “tough on China” attitude to the fight. Because he refused Sany, the company brought up a lawsuit against the government.
In the first presidential debate on the 3rd, the economy was the hot topic. But sadly, neither Obama nor Romney gave any solutions to recover the U.S. economy.
The U.S. economy does not punish China as a way to solve its issues. As the largest holder of its debt, China is one key player in the U.S. economy that the U.S. cannot live without. In addition, the development of economic globalization trend became irreversible long ago. Chinese and U.S. interests are intertwined; economic and trade interdependence has already been formed. Despite the difficulty of global economic recovery, Sino-U.S. trade still managed to buck the trend. According to Chinese Ministry of Commerce statistics, in 2011, the Sino-U.S. trade volume reached $446.7 billion, a record high. U.S. exports to China exceeded the $100 billion mark, reaching $122.2 billion. This was an increase of 20 percent over the same period. China and the U.S. have become each other's largest trading partners. If the U.S. were to punish such an important partner, it would inevitably hurt itself.
For the U.S. itself, the real need is to address the looming problem of the “fiscal cliff.” When the extension of the George W. Bush administration’s tax cut plan and long-term unemployment benefit policies are up, either government debt or another instance of "peaking" and going back to laissez-faire development will be a direct blow to U.S. future economic growth. U.S. trade protectionism against China, with the exception of reaping political benefits, cannot fundamentally solve the current economic predicament.
In reality, Romney and Obama are not at all aware of this. Even though both of them have recently been speaking of China in a critical light, during the first presidential debate, Obama almost never directly spoke of China and Romney only brought up China a couple of times. Moreover their criticism towards China was not heated. It is clear that the two men’s “critical stance” on China is only lip-service for the general election.
Sany is using the law to fight for its rights. As for other Chinese companies, they must face the challenge head-on in the same way, by using their position to take active steps to play an important role in the U.S. economy. Why should they fear the U.S. general election creating difficulties for them?
Previous article![]( "Romney Wins in Spite of Big Gaps")
