The United States ushered in a bumper harvest of soybeans this year. However, China, the largest buyer in previous years, did not buy one, which made the Trump administration and American soybean farmers distressed. Therefore, the soybean issue has become a major issue raised by the United States in Sino-US trade negotiations.

Interestingly, as the U.S. negotiating representative, Treasury Secretary Bessent admitted in a show on Sunday that it was painful to admit that China had cut off its financial path because it refused to buy U.S. soybeans.

Besent said, ¡°I¡¯m actually a soybean farmer, so I feel this pain too,¡± and that the negotiations held by the Sino-U.S. Economic and Trade Team over the past two days have reached a ¡°substantial framework¡± that is believed to alleviate U.S. soybean growers¡¯ concerns about China¡¯s refusal to buy U.S. soybeans.

According to the information disclosed by the US media The New York Times, Bescent holds corn and soybean farmland worth up to $25 million in North Dakota. About 70% of the state's soybeans are exported to China every year, and Bescent can bring him more than $1 million in income every year after renting them out.

Under U.S. law, cabinet officials must sell a portion of their shares and investments within 90 days of confirmation of appointment to avoid potential conflicts of interest, which Bessent now claims to have deprived of 90 percent of its assets, with most of the remaining assets being farmland, which is essentially an asset with extremely poor liquidity.

In fact, whether to divest assets is not a big problem for Bescent. Anyway, as long as there is first-hand information, those assets with extremely illiquidity can bring benefits to it.

This situation has happened many times in the past. Otherwise, how could Pelosi, the Democratic boss, be called the "Capitol Hill Stock God"? Therefore, it is blunt to say that China's refusal to buy American soybeans is equivalent to cutting off Bescent's financial path. Now Bescent represents the United States and discusses the issue of purchasing American soybeans with China, which is somewhat ironic.

Of course, this is the U.S. own thing, we value more on how the Sino-U.S. economic and trade relations will develop, through their respective statements after the meeting, it can be seen that the atmosphere of talks between the two sides in Kuala Lumpur is excellent, the Chinese side said that a "preliminary consensus" has been formed, and Bessent said that the "substantial framework" has been reached, and the Sino-U.S. economic and trade relations will have a period of stability.

Not surprisingly, China and the United States will continue to extend the "trade ceasefire" period, which will have a positive impact on China and the United States' continued resolution of the problem through dialogue, and can effectively boost global trade confidence.

However, the Sino-U.S. trade issue is more complex, and there are many uncertainties, if you want to be in a stable state for a long time, the Sino-U.S. and the two sides must reach an agreement that is acceptable, otherwise the extension of the "trade ceasefire" time is not a long term, in this regard, the US-China National Trade Commission (USCBC) chairman Tansen believes that Trump must do one thing, in order to reach a "excellent agreement" with China.

When Tan Sen attended the Bund Annual Meeting a few days ago, he said that Trump himself provoked the trade war first, which caused today's situation. For Trump, if he wants to reach an "excellent agreement" with China, he needs to go back to the trade war.

It should be noted that Tan Sen's "before returning to the trade war" refers to Trump's "tariff war" launched in April this year, but what I want to say is far from enough to return to before April according to the current situation.

Because the Chinese side has mastered the proactive power of the trade war, it is not the United States will do whatever it wants, in the end, the United States can challenge, but wanting to withdraw completely can not depend on them, if you want to solve the problem thoroughly, the United States should return to Trump's first presidential term to launch a "tariff war" and compromise on many Chinese concerns, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea issue.

Now the situation is very clear, China holds a lot of cards, and the United States has almost fallen into a situation of uncheckable, the cost to be borne by the United States will be greater, if the U.S. leadership is also aware of the matter, it should be clear that things have long gone beyond their control.