President Trump, whose popularity has recently risen, according to polls, still feels that he is a hero who dares to challenge China. He seems to be unaware of the danger of economic instability.

As RAND points out, government subsidization of aircraft manufacturers is a conflict between Boeing and Airbus that the U.S. and E.U. have yet to resolve. If they do not establish norms now, there will be little recourse against generous Chinese governmental support of its aerospace industry in the coming years.

With a 3 month window, if the two countries can engage in meaningful talks, a deal is still possible, and a trade war can be kept at bay.

There are several major factors driving the current intellectual property infringement debate in Sino-American trade relations that must be better understood: the cultural factors highlighted by the Chinese epigram that “to steal a book is an elegant offense” and the Made in China 2025 Initiative.

US manufacturing job losses as a result of technological advances is inevitable, but China and America can manage the resulting hardship together.

To figure out what will change under a different framework for leadership succession, it is important to cut through the authorities’ opaque rhetoric – the “moderately well-off society” transitioning into the “new era” – and stress-test their basic development strategy.

Trump’s trade belligerence is damaging the house America built.

Are trade wars easy to win and is Trump both willing and capable of escalating the conflict with Beijing to an all-out trade war, hoping that China will sooner or later capitulate?

Competition can be healthy for both China and the US, provided it doesn’t get out of hand.

The Trump administration wants China to import more cars, aircraft, soybeans and natural gas.