Software engineers straight out of college often make six-figure salaries, not counting equity compensation.Technologyread more
Representatives from the Chinese side say they think it likely that Chinese President Xi Jinping will attend the G-20 meeting later this month. But in order to reach a trade...China Economyread more
Wall Street, though, is clamoring for a rate cut, with an 85% chance of a move in July and a 61% probability of three reductions by year's end.The Fedread more
A company spokesperson said the outage was the result of a "an internal technology issue" and was not security related.Retailread more
Using MIT's living wage calculator, CNBC Make It mapped out the minimum amount a single parent must earn to meet their basic needs without relying on outside help in every...Earnread more
The flattening of the yield curve is exuding a bad omen for the stock market if history is any guide.Marketsread more
Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced at a press conference on Saturday that a contentious bill to allow extraditions to mainland China has been put on hold.China Politicsread more
Stratolaunch, the world's largest airplane, which flew once, is up for sale, sources familiar told CNBC.Investing in Spaceread more
Transparency is key… or is it? With the first-ever non-transparent, actively managed exchange-traded fund receiving approval from the SEC, "ETF Edge" goes straight to the...ETF Edgeread more
Mired in a crisis over its best-selling 737 Max plane, Boeing could hand the spotlight over to its rival Airbus at the Paris Air Show.Airlinesread more
A new update to the Apple Watch called watchOS 6 will notify you if the environment you're in is too loud and could damage your hearing.Technologyread more
That was certainly the fear emanating from Washington last week when news emerged that the White House was engaged in serious discussions over using another long-dormant trade tool — Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — to retaliate against China over its controversial intellectual property policies.
Section 301 is, as the Financial Times makes clear in an editorial published today, a blunt instrument in trade policy. And its use would be provocative:
"The use of a tool such as Section 301 — the trade diplomacy equivalent of a wooden club — to batter China into submission may be counterproductive. Under the 301 statute, which has not been widely used since the 1995 creation of the WTO, the US would in effect act as judge, jury and executioner on any grievance that it identifies. The use of such an uncompromising weapon would probably be seen by the Chinese as an extreme provocation, thus risking a full-blown trade war."
But it's also worth pausing to consider a few realities that mean war may not be imminent. The first is that, as has been the case with other provocative Trump trade proposals, some form of moderation may lie ahead. Remember the 45 per cent tariff on goods from China? Or the border tax? Or the president's campaign pledge to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement?
The first two haven't materialised and may never do so, while the once-mooted exit from Nafta has turned into a renegotiation aimed at "modernising" the pact with Canada and Mexico. A more recent push for a broad tariff on steel imports in the name of US national security, which in June seemed days away, has morphed into a trade technocrat's dream: an elaborate system of tariffs, quotas and exceptions that looks like it will take months to construct and may never even see the light of day.
Why is that relevant to the Section 301 move now being discussed? The answer lies in the way the law works. What Mr Trump appears ready to announce, possibly in the coming days, is not the immediate imposition of tariffs. It is the launch of an investigation into China's intellectual property policies, much like the national security ones he ordered earlier this year into US steel and aluminium imports. That will rightly generate headlines if it happens. But the real provocation won't come until the end of that investigation, which could take a year, and a decision on what remedies to punish China with.
In the meantime, you can expect plenty of negotiations with Beijing, lobbying by industry groups and debate within the administration. And we have seen some of that already, which also gets at the second reason a trade war may not be imminent: geopolitics.
A push by the administration to get Chinese backing for new UN sanctions on North Korea resulted in an expected announcement of the launch of the Section 301 investigation on Friday being postponed. It also saw the president proclaiming a diplomatic victory — and hailing China's support — after the Security Council voted to impose those sanctions on Saturday.
The message was a notable change from the frustration with China that Mr Trump had expressed in recent weeks after earlier this year establishing China's potential co-operation on North Korea as a reason for holding back on his promised trade attack on Beijing. After the weekend UN vote, it is worth asking whether that logic may hold again for some time, especially with China's leadership preparing for this autumn's 19th party congress and the unveiling of a new top team.
The third important reality is that Mr Trump and the China hawks in his administration are not the only ones calling for a reset in trade relations with Beijing. China was not surprisingly the main target in a new trade manifesto unveiled by Senate Democrats last week. But the calls go beyond politics and across party lines.
Between chasing 301 whispers last week, I had conversations with half a dozen former senior US trade officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations — people who had made China policy and prosecuted major China trade cases. All of them agreed that US trade policy toward China has not worked and that it is time for Washington to get more aggressive. Many in the business community feel the same way. The only real question is what tools Washington should use and when.
Those conversations led me to a simple conclusion. This may or may not be the week that Donald Trump launches his trade war with China. But it is very hard to see how some sort of conflict isn't likely before long. The mood in Washington is calling for it.
President Trump seized on Friday's strong non-farm payrolls report as yet more evidence of the robust economy he is bringing to Americans. But there was another number released Friday that he didn't crow about, which was remarkable for a man with an obsessions about trade deficits.
According to the US Census Bureau's latest data the first six months of 2017 have not been good for the country's balance of trade.
"Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit increased $26.7 billion, or 10.7 percent, from the same period in 2016. Exports increased $64.9 billion or 6.0 percent. Imports increased $91.7 billion or 6.9 percent."
More from the Financial Times:
Elstat suspends preliminary Greek GDP estimate after discrepancies
Fed's Bullard argues for leaving rates on hold on weak inflation
Greenspan's bond bubble prognosis overblown