Thread by @WholePicture_

A group of 10 Southeast Asian nations replaced the U.S. as China's second-largest trading partner in 2019.
The shift to Aisa is likely to continue as Southeast Asian economies are projected to grow faster than developed countries overt the next decade.

Those drade links will be future cemented by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership pact signed late last year, which will see 15 regional economies gradually drop some tariffs on each others goods.

The fact that exports were little affected after four years of trade war speaks to the resilience of China's manufacturing capacity. However the trade war has exposed China's vulnerability in certain bottleneck sectors such as high tech.

More than three quaters of 200-plus U.S. manufactures in and around Shanghai surveyed in September said they didn't intend to move production out of China.

U.S. companies regularly cite the rapid growth of China's consumer market combined with its strong manufacturing capabilities as reason for expanding there.

"No matter how high the Trump administration raised any tariffs, it was going to be very difficult to dissuade US companies from investing.

Another own goal: Tariffs on imports from China tended to reduce U.S. exports.
That was because globalized supply chains mean manufacturing is shared between countries, and the U.S. raised the costs of its own goods by leveling duties on imports of Chinese components.

The biggest victory claimed by the administration as part of its trade deal were promises from Beijing to enhance intellectual property protections. But that was probably in China's interests anyway.

In the 1930s, the unemploayment rate never fell below 15%. Five years after starting his "New Deal", Roosevelt's economic policies had caused one in five active Americans to be without a job.

In the end, it was the Second World War that ended unemployment. How? By forcibly recruiting 20% of active population to work in the war industry, and by spending the equivalent of 42% of GDP on the entire effort.

One significant problem was that during those years inflation which rose almost 20% and even with 1% unemployment there was raioning of basic consumer goods.

The US truly emerged from depression when, at the end of the war, it abruptly cut taxes by one-third and began paying off the debt.

The US is already the second top market for renewable investment according to EY.

Renewable and green investments are already flourishing without the need for politicians to interfere.

In fact, the US is investing more than $40 billion per annum in renewables, and if we add infrastructure and energy efficiency, the US is still the top global destination of productive investment in green energy, technology, and infrastructure.

The US has been able to reduce CO2 emissions while the European Union with the largest subsidy plans and high tax on CO2 increased them.

The US has achieved more in developing renewables, technology and energy efficiency without massive tax and bill increases. There is nothing “green” on a central planner’s decision to inflate GDP via public spending. it is the opposite.

It artificially increases energy and capital utilization to create false demand signals that end up being bubbles that hurt the economy and make it less dynamic.

There is no need for a Green New Deal. We are already living a period of rising government spending, too high deficits, and debt. Innovation and technology disruption are reducing the energy intensity of GDP faster than any government can ever decide.

There is no need for a Green New Deal. We are already living a period of rising government spending, too high deficits, and debt. Innovation and technology disruption are reducing the energy intensity of GDP faster than any government can ever decide.

Why? Because politicians and governments do not have more or better information about the needs of the economy, consumers or about the pace of innovation and technology implementation.

In fact, governments havce every incentive to inflate GDP at any cost, pass the bill to consumers and the debt to taxpayers.

Those that they aim to preserve at any cost. If governments truly cared about the climate and environment they would shut down the most polluting industries, which are all state-owned or government concessions.

As we have shown on so many occasions, huge spending on white elephants is partially responsible for global stagnation and excessive debt.

Huge pharaonic works that promise billions of dollars of growth, jobs, and benefits that, subsequently, are not achieved, leaving a trail of debt and massive operating costs.

Deepak Lal’s study citing Professors Ansar and Flyvbjerg shows that the actual cost-benefit analysis compared to the “estimated returns” when projects are approved, proves to be disastrous.

Fifty-five percent of the analyzed projects generated a profit-to-cost ratio of less than one, that is, they created real losses.

But, of the rest, only six projects of those analyzed showed positive returns. The rest, nothing. The economy does not grow more, it makes the economy weaker.