In the gold fields of the Midwestern United States, soybeans are well grown, but no buyer can be found. The farmers' faces have no joy of past years, and the warehouses are full of grain that cannot be sold.

They have long been accustomed to China's big orders, and once in the harvest season, the wheels of the truck can be turned by orders, but now even buyers are lazy to ask the price, and the trade war really hit their heads.

The U.S. government opened fire on Chinese goods first, and China quickly returned its hand, aiming at the life of American agriculture.

Soybeans have become a key link in this battle. When things have developed to this point, the U.S. Treasury Secretary stepped forward and became angry, accusing China of taking American farmers as "hostages."

But the question is, it is clearly the trade war launched by the United States against China first. Now the Trump administration can't afford to play without gaining the upper hand in the trade war?

Who turns against you first, who cries out pain first?

This dispute was first provoked by the United States, the first to raise the table, and now blame others for not eating after. The original trade relationship between the Sino-U.S. although friction, but generally stable. but Trump suddenly decided to use high tariffs to "repair" China, said to protect its own manufacturing industry, to to make the United States great again.

As a result, the manufacturing industry was not revitalized, but farmers were cheated first.

China has not chosen to remain silent, but has responded to the provocation with practical action.In a short time, US agricultural exports, especially soybeans, were affected by the most direct losses.

China used to be the world's largest buyer of soybeans, and the United States was the main supplier. This time, the balance of the market was thus broken.

China no longer purchases large quantities of U.S. soybeans and turns to do business with other countries. This adjustment is not a temporary intention, but a long-term preparation. The United States did not expect that this move would hit its most vulnerable place.

So, the original confidence-filled American top layers began to rush. Seeing farmers' days are bad, they began to throw the pot on the outside. Saying that China is holding American farmers as "hostages", this is quite frightening, but if the preceding cause and consequences are clear, who is really using farmers, the answer is not difficult to find.

The U.S. government is provoking the dispute itself and asking farmers to pay for the policy, which is where the real problem is.

Subsidies can quench thirst, but not

As the complaints of farmers grew, the U.S. government also understood that it was not easy to reassure people with their mouths, so they launched a subsidy program to help farmers get through the difficulties.

It looks like a big deal, but where did this money come from?It was drawn from the tariffs on Chinese goods.In other words, taking one tax and giving it from the other side, can this left hand-to-right practice really solve the fundamental problem?

On the surface, the farmers took the subsidies, and for a while there was some consolation, but this is not a long term. the market has not returned, the order has not been restored, this money is a cup of watercoach salary.

What is even more troublesome is that many industries outside agriculture have also been affected. Should other injured companies and workers also be subsidized? If we have to make up for it all, how will the government's money be enough to spend it?

More importantly, this subsidy itself contradicts the "free market" concept that the United States has always emphasized.The United States demands that others open the market, but itins exports through subsidies, which is incomprehensible.

Seeing it internationally, it is inevitable to question: Is this a double standard? If the United States wants to continue to mix in the global market, it cannot be reasonable and cheat at the same time.

I rushed because it was gone.

The U.S. Treasury Secretary's rhetoric is becoming more and more fierce, which actually reflects internal anxiety. Originally, I thought that if I pressed it, China would give in, but I didn't expect to get a nasty nose.

China has not surrendered, but has chosen to resolutely counteract, and has played well.The soya card, which was originally the U.S. negotiation tool, has now become its own soft rib.

What is exposed behind this is a strategic misjudgment. The United States thought it had the initiative, but it didn't expect that China had already made a plan.

And once the Chinese market no longer relies on American soybeans, American farmers become the most direct victims.

The U.S. government is facing considerable pressure. On the one hand, we must take care of the sentiments of domestic voters, especially agricultural states, and on the other hand, we do not want to appear to give in in negotiations with China.

So he kept putting pressure verbally, but in essence he couldn't come up with any new moves. This state of being caught in the middle makes the policy more and more contradictory. Saying one thing and doing another will neither solve the problem nor solve the contradiction.

China¡¯s attitude is clear, willing to talk, but must be equal, and the problems must be solved at the table, not in the media.

If the United States really wants to ease the situation, it has to change the thinking that "you let me win is cooperation". Cooperation is a two-way street, not unilateral obedience to orders.

Soya is the amplifier of this game.

A grain of soybeans clearly illuminated the trade relations between the two countries. It was an ordinary agricultural product, but now has become a symbol of political role. The encounter with American soybeans is the most direct expression after the policy imbalance.

They are neither "hostages" nor bargaining chips, but a group of people who have been pushed to the forefront.

It can be seen from this fact that unilateralism and trade bullying, in the end, move the stone to knock their feet, will eventually be counterfeited.

At first, the U.S. government wanted to use toughness to win the initiative, but as a result, the group it relied on most was injured first. When I realized that the problem was serious, I rushed to blame, but I could never come up with a solution to the problem. Relying on subsidies to maintain stability and relying on public opinion to build momentum can only delay time and cannot solve the root cause.

China¡¯s response is stable and tough, with no escalation of conflict and no retreat, and withdrawal within the scope permitted by the rules is a rational and appropriate choice.

In the international trading system, it will naturally be clear over time who follows the rules and who is reasonable.

The game is far from over, but one thing is already clear: a trade war has no winners. a thousand wounded, eight hundred lost. The United States wants to really change the status quo, must look for problems from itself, not blame others.

The policy of pushing the peasants to the front, but not giving them a way back, will sooner or later reverse.

ended

The trouble of U.S. bean farming is not caused by China, but the result of the imbalance of U.S. government policy.A trade conflict has pushed the mutually beneficial cooperation relationship to the opposite.

China did not provoke the dispute, but assumed the responsibility to deal with it.If the United States really wants to re-load soybeans on cargo ships to the East, it must return to reason and put the dialogue back on the table.

Only by letting go of arrogance can we find a common way out.This is not only a responsible attitude towards farmers, but also a responsible attitude towards the world economy as a whole.