It seems as if U.S. President Donald Trump is intent on perpetrating a dangerous fallacy: to impose tariffs on American imports to lower the trade deficit. These moves are coming despite the fact that the most prominent critic of China’s trade practices in the U.S. administration, Steven Bannon, has left the White House. Why is the Trump administration so enamored by tariffs, a trade policy more commonly employed a hundred years ago?

For more than a decade, China and the United States have been engaged in a game of tit-for-tat technology protectionism, which now threatens to escalate into a wider high-tech trade war. But protectionism need not be met with protectionism. There is another route to deescalate this conflict: via the World Trade Organization.

Professor Lau shares his insights on public debt and corporate debt in relation to the argument that China should reduce its debt in order to avoid a major drag on economic growth.

There have been a myriad of talks about the possibility of war, specifically a trade war and the gains and losses of such a prospect. Would the Trump administration trigger a trade war and what could that entail for the two nations?

Professor Lau outlines the benefits of a Bilateral Investment Treaty that includes a “mutual protection of investment” and “negative list.”

In his view, there are two ways in which to reduce the trade imbalance: China reduces exports to the U.S. or the U.S. increases exports to China.

Professor Lau discusses his research on the bilateral trade deficit and argues that the current deficit based on U.S. data of $367.4 billion is actually closer to $132.7 billion.

Trump’s rhetoric and campaign platform on trade has become a contentious issue. Professor Lau explains the significance of Sino-American trade.

Trump’s proposed corporate tax cuts are undercutting China. China should respond in kind.

The escalated tensions between the U.S. and China are raising concerns about a potential trade war. In my last editorial, I talked about how our official trade