The Farmer's Exchange Online Home
Friday, December 6, 2019
Michiana's Popular Farm Paper Since 1926
Click here to subscribe today

End of U.S.-China Trade War Looks Like the Beginning of a Cold War


by Alan Guebert

Published: Friday, November 8, 2019

The following is from Alan Guebert, a freelance agricultural journalist from Illinois.

If China agreed to purchase "$40 to $50 billion" of U.S. farm goods in "the next two years," as President Donald J. Trump announced Oct. 11, the futures market—where market reality is quickly sorted from political talk—literally wasn't buying it.

In fact, November soybean futures, the nearby contract, opened Oct. 14 at $9.405 per bushel and closed at $9.405, an almost unheard of result given that U.S. farmers are in the middle of their annual soy-bean season and the White House is in the middle of another monthly China tariff fight.

The December corn futures were even less impressed. Traders opened corn at $4.01 per bushel that day and finished the session nearly four cents per bushel lower. Prices then drained lower for the next two weeks.

And hogs? Every U.S. market player knows African Swine Flu continues to decimate the Chinese hog herd—some guesses put pig losses at a staggering 45 percent nationwide. So the president's Oct. 11 announcement of "substantial" ag ex-ports to China propelled December hog futures through the roof, right?

Not even close. Indeed, two weeks after the White House's ag-exports talk, December hog futures were $5 per hundredweight, or more than 7 per-cent, lower than the day of the announcement.

Traders had a good reason for their cold reception to the president's red-hot news. Most have been burned by fiery White House talk before, so few were buying a pound of anything—witness soybean futures' remarkably flat day—until they got confirma-tion.

Not only did it not come, news the next day proved the traders' worries to be correct; China openly downplayed the White House's giddy enthusiasm for any $50 billion ag deal and claimed no such agreement had been put to paper.

The market's overall sustained, lower reaction, however, is pointing to other, more ominous problems between China and the U.S. than just ag.

For example, the problem that started this trade war—the thorny, unresolved issue of China's required technology transfer by U.S. firms to do business there—is rarely mentioned by either side.

But it's more than just technology transfers. If the U.S. and China agree to any interim ag deal in the coming month, reported Reuters Oct. 25, that deal still "will not cover U.S. allegations of Chinese hacking into U.S. companies and government agencies, state subsidies (or) Bei-jing's alleged dumping of lower-priced products on global markets ..."

How can any U.S.-Chinese ag deal—an increased likelihood—stay above water with all that weight hanging around its neck? The mar-ket appears to be betting that it won't.

Another reason to worry is the sudden stern tone U.S. leaders have taken on China in speeches both there and in the U.S. The first to grumble was Terry Branstad, the former Iowa governor who now serves as U.S. ambassador to China.

On Oct. 21, Branstad publicly offered some "unusually pointed remarks ... (that) turn on a catchphrase—reciprocity—that U.S. officials have in-voked to justify a tougher approach toward China on issues including commerce and diplomacy," explained the Washington Post.

Branstad was speaking on behalf of the White House and proof came three days later when Vice President Mike Pence, reported the New York Times, "denounced American companies that he said had compromised American values like free speech to appease the Chinese Communist Party."

China didn't take either slap lightly. A day after the Pence speech, a Chinese government spokeswoman said the vice president's speech "'exuded sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, and was packed with political prejudice and lies ...'"

The American directness and the equally curt Chinese reply do not sound like two na-tions nearing agreement on anything. In fact, the unusually tough, undiplomatic talk sounds more like two nations preparing for a cold war rather than two nations preparing to end a trade war.

If that's the case—and who knows given this mercurial White House—then the futures traders' bet soon will pay off yet again.

Return to Top of Page