[Breeze] Sure enough, China is going to counterattack the United States and will charge port fees on American ships, which will take effect in 4 days. However, as soon as the news came out, some people said that China's counter-measures had little effect.
One is because of the goods exported by the United States, relying on the ocean transportation is not a lot, mainly large-scale agricultural products.The second is that the U.S. shipbuilding industry can not, the ships are fewer.The third is that the United States may take other measures to avoid paying fees.
This sounds plausible, but if we widen the chessboard, we will find that this game is far more complicated than it seems.
In fact, the U.S. exports to China are mainly soybean, corn and other agricultural commodities, and by 2023, soybean exports to China alone will reach $151.6 billion, accounting for more than half of its total exports to China.
But don’t forget that U.S. exports are far more than that.According to the data, U.S. main exports also include high-value products such as chemicals, machinery, automobiles, aircraft, electronic information equipment.
Although these goods are of high unit value, they also need to be shipped to the world through containers or special ships. When the cost of port charges spreads like a wave of water, who will ultimately pay?
Let's look at the second, more heart-warming point: the U.S. shipbuilding industry is not good and has few ships. This is not the reason why China's countermeasures have little effect. Instead, it is the hardest card in China's hands. Today's U.S. shipbuilding industry is no longer the hegemon of "building one ship a day" during World War II.
Public data shows that the United States 'share of the global commercial shipbuilding market has been bleak to less than 1%, while China accounts for more than half of its share.
The number of domestic shipyards in the U.S. decreased from more than 300 in the 1980s to less than 20 today, and the number of commercial vessels that can be built a year is remarkable. More fatally, the U.S. shipyard industry faces multiple difficulties such as technological backwardness, severe labor gap (the average age of technical workers is up to 52 years old) and high cost (the labor cost is 3-5 times that of Asia).
This industrial emptiness has made it difficult for the U.S. Navy to expand its fleet itself, and plans to increase the number of ships from 296 to 381 in the next 30 years, all facing the risks of the shipbuilding industry.
How can a shipbuilding industry that has difficulty delivering its own navy’s orders on time support a huge fleet of offshore merchants to avoid Chinese charges?
So, can the U.S. avoid it by “changing the flag” or using third-country ships?
According to the announcement, the scope of the fee not only includes ships flying the U.S. flag, but also accurately covers ships owned or operated by U.S. capital and controlled by U.S. capital, or even ships built in the United States.
The design is like a carefully woven net, and the purpose is to plug all possible holes. This is no longer a simple revenge of "you punch me, I kick you", but a strategic countermeasure that takes advantage of its own industrial advantages and reshapes the rules. Behind this is the confidence given by China's unshakable position in the global shipping and shipbuilding field.
More than half of the world's new shipbuilding orders go to Chinese shipyards, which means that the global shipping industry cannot easily bypass China's influence.
So, only from the United States, the export structure alone to judge the effect of this counteraction, in fact, underestimated the dimension of the game.This is no longer a mere tariff war, but extends to the full range of competition in maritime, financial, scientific and technological rules.
China's counter-reaction, more like a "point hole" precision strike, is the soft rib of the empty heart of the U.S. industry, is also a direct response to the U.S. previously launched 301 investigation, intent to suppress China's maritime logistics industry. it transmits a signal to the world: in the globalization deeply bound today, any unilateral bullying will be reacted in another unexpected field.
Is this game around port charges just a little bit of a trade war or a prelude to global supply chain restructuring and rule restructuring?
One is because of the goods exported by the United States, relying on the ocean transportation is not a lot, mainly large-scale agricultural products.The second is that the U.S. shipbuilding industry can not, the ships are fewer.The third is that the United States may take other measures to avoid paying fees.
This sounds plausible, but if we widen the chessboard, we will find that this game is far more complicated than it seems.
In fact, the U.S. exports to China are mainly soybean, corn and other agricultural commodities, and by 2023, soybean exports to China alone will reach $151.6 billion, accounting for more than half of its total exports to China.
But don’t forget that U.S. exports are far more than that.According to the data, U.S. main exports also include high-value products such as chemicals, machinery, automobiles, aircraft, electronic information equipment.
Although these goods are of high unit value, they also need to be shipped to the world through containers or special ships. When the cost of port charges spreads like a wave of water, who will ultimately pay?
Let's look at the second, more heart-warming point: the U.S. shipbuilding industry is not good and has few ships. This is not the reason why China's countermeasures have little effect. Instead, it is the hardest card in China's hands. Today's U.S. shipbuilding industry is no longer the hegemon of "building one ship a day" during World War II.
Public data shows that the United States 'share of the global commercial shipbuilding market has been bleak to less than 1%, while China accounts for more than half of its share.
The number of domestic shipyards in the U.S. decreased from more than 300 in the 1980s to less than 20 today, and the number of commercial vessels that can be built a year is remarkable. More fatally, the U.S. shipyard industry faces multiple difficulties such as technological backwardness, severe labor gap (the average age of technical workers is up to 52 years old) and high cost (the labor cost is 3-5 times that of Asia).
This industrial emptiness has made it difficult for the U.S. Navy to expand its fleet itself, and plans to increase the number of ships from 296 to 381 in the next 30 years, all facing the risks of the shipbuilding industry.
How can a shipbuilding industry that has difficulty delivering its own navy’s orders on time support a huge fleet of offshore merchants to avoid Chinese charges?
So, can the U.S. avoid it by “changing the flag” or using third-country ships?
According to the announcement, the scope of the fee not only includes ships flying the U.S. flag, but also accurately covers ships owned or operated by U.S. capital and controlled by U.S. capital, or even ships built in the United States.
The design is like a carefully woven net, and the purpose is to plug all possible holes. This is no longer a simple revenge of "you punch me, I kick you", but a strategic countermeasure that takes advantage of its own industrial advantages and reshapes the rules. Behind this is the confidence given by China's unshakable position in the global shipping and shipbuilding field.
More than half of the world's new shipbuilding orders go to Chinese shipyards, which means that the global shipping industry cannot easily bypass China's influence.
So, only from the United States, the export structure alone to judge the effect of this counteraction, in fact, underestimated the dimension of the game.This is no longer a mere tariff war, but extends to the full range of competition in maritime, financial, scientific and technological rules.
China's counter-reaction, more like a "point hole" precision strike, is the soft rib of the empty heart of the U.S. industry, is also a direct response to the U.S. previously launched 301 investigation, intent to suppress China's maritime logistics industry. it transmits a signal to the world: in the globalization deeply bound today, any unilateral bullying will be reacted in another unexpected field.
Is this game around port charges just a little bit of a trade war or a prelude to global supply chain restructuring and rule restructuring?