Trump’s Trade War With China Disregards Companies Involved

Photo of Trey Thoelcke
By Trey Thoelcke Published
This post may contain links from our sponsors and affiliates, and Flywheel Publishing may receive compensation for actions taken through them.

A trade war is brewing between the United States and China, but the offended parties — U.S. companies operating in China supposed forced to hand over technology for access to local markets — do not seem to have much to say about the matter.

The pretense for the administration’s threatening to investigate China’s trade practices are based on the 1974 Trade Act, and the president is not the first to employ the law by far. The Reagan administration also tried to use the law in order to strengthen the position of the United States in trade with the People’s Republic. These efforts ended mostly in failure, which is why the law has not been invoked in decades.

Chinese strong-arming American companies to transfer technology may be unfair and damaging, if indeed it is happening, though one would think that if American companies doing business in China were so imperiled by Chinese actions, they would avoid doing business in China. The fact that they aren’t shows pretty clearly that they believe that China’s conditions for doing business in China are reasonable, versus avoiding the Chinese market entirely. It may not be an ideal arrangement, but what we have now is probably better than igniting a trade war and constricting business relationships for both sides even further.

[nativounit]

How bad is the problem that the White House is trying to solve here? Administration officials are throwing around the number $600 billion, but it is unclear how this number is calculated. A more precise metric of the problem is being reported by the Associated Press. In a recent survey by the U.S.-China Business Council, 20 out of 100 companies surveyed said that they were asked to transfer technology within the past three years as a condition for market access.

This certainly sounds believable, especially for a country still ruled by a one-party communist system. A spokesman for the council then opined that this was unjust. Maybe so, but the problem is, if transferring the technology was so deeply against the interests of these 20 companies, why would they acquiesce anyway? Because access to the Chinese market is more important than maintaining technological secrecy for these U.S. firms in these specific cases.

One could argue that the president is trying to even the playing field with China by pursuing this enforcement of a 1974 trade law, but trying to actually enforce it will almost certainly harm the business that these American companies are already doing in China.

[recirclink id=408023]

The U.S.-China Business Council does indeed represent over 200 American companies, including industry giants like Apple, Monsanto and even banking behemoths like Goldman Sachs. However, it is unclear how much the council speaks for them or is merely formally stamped by them. It would seem that any major move to ignite a trade dispute between the two biggest trading partners in the world should garner some comment from the companies involved, rather than strictly from an umbrella mouthpiece.

How soon may we start seeing practical effects of these new policies? Jacob Parker, vice president of China operations at the council, said that within 60 to 90 days we should know if the administration will begin to seriously pursue this course of action. It will be interesting to see if any of the companies listed as represented by the council will offer any objections to this new course of executive action.

[wallst_email_signup]

Photo of Trey Thoelcke
About the Author Trey Thoelcke →

Trey has been an editor and author at 24/7 Wall St. for more than a decade, where he has published thousands of articles analyzing corporate earnings, dividend stocks, short interest, insider buying, private equity, and market trends. His comprehensive coverage spans the full spectrum of financial markets, from blue-chip stalwarts to emerging growth companies.

Beyond 24/7 Wall St., Trey has created and edited financial content for Benzinga and AOL's BloggingStocks, contributing additional hundreds of articles to the investment community. He previously oversaw the 24/7 Climate Insights site, managing editorial operations and content strategy, and currently oversees and creates content for My Investing News.

Trey's editorial expertise extends across multiple publishing environments. He served as production editor at Dearborn Financial Publishing and development editor at Kaplan, where he helped shape financial education materials. Earlier in his career, he worked as a writer-producer at SVE. His freelance editing portfolio includes work for prestigious clients such as Sage Publications, Rand McNally, the Institute for Supply Management, the American Library Association, Eggplant Literary Productions, and Spiegel.

Outside of financial journalism, Trey writes fiction and has been an active member of the writing community for years, overseeing a long-running critique group and moderating workshop sessions at regional conventions. He lives with his family in an old house in the Midwest.

Featured Reads

Our top personal finance-related articles today. Your wallet will thank you later.

Continue Reading

Top Gaining Stocks

CBOE Vol: 1,568,143
PSKY Vol: 12,285,993
STX Vol: 7,378,346
ORCL Vol: 26,317,675
DDOG Vol: 6,247,779

Top Losing Stocks

LKQ
LKQ Vol: 4,367,433
CLX Vol: 13,260,523
SYK Vol: 4,519,455
MHK Vol: 1,859,865
AMGN Vol: 3,818,618