Jack Ma: trade war means Alibaba can no longer create 1 million jobs in US

[midian182]

In brief: With the US/China trade war now in full swing, we’re starting to see more repercussions. Jack Ma, the founder and chairman of Chinese tech giant Alibaba, says the ongoing conflict means his company is no longer able to honor a pledge to create one million American jobs.

Speaking to Chinese publication Xinhua, Ma said his promise to create the jobs was made under the assumption that the US and China would continue to have a friendly partnership and “rational trade relations.”

“The current situation has already ruined that. There is no way to complete the promise now, but we won’t stop working hard to promote the healthy development of China-US trade,” said Ma.

Ma first announced plans to create the US jobs during a meeting with Donald Trump in January 2017, before Trump’s inauguration. Ma said Alibaba could create "1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform." But many analysts were skeptical.

On Monday, the Trump administration expanded tariffs on another $200 billion worth of Chinese imported goods. The 10 percent tariff is to be implemented by September 24, which will increase to 25 percent by the end of the year. On Tuesday, China hit back with tariffs on $60 billion worth of US goods.

Ma, who is set to retire as Alibaba chairman next year, said he expects the trade conflict to drag on for decades. “It’s going to last a long time, maybe 20 years. It’s going to be a mess. It’s not a trade war, it’s about competition between two countries.”

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/76530-jack-ma-trade-wars-means-alibaba-can-longer.html

 

[JB3543]

It's ridiculous to think Ma would ever have created 1M jobs in the USA. Ridiculous.

The little imp was tossing BS.

And stop with the whole "Trump is ruining the economy because he's a meanie" BS. It's embarrassing.

 

[p51d007]

Alibaba...the knock off version of Amazon, selling cheap chinese junk all over the world.

 

[psycros]

"1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform." But many analysts were skeptical.

Because they were *totally* gong to finally drop their massive tariffs on US imports. Suck it, China.

 

[Mothilal]

Alibaba...the knock off version of Amazon, selling cheap chinese junk all over the world.

I do not think so. They can not survive too long like this, if they are selling junk. They have a mechanism to control it.

 

[Mothilal]

"1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform." But many analysts were skeptical.

Because they were *totally* gong to finally drop their massive tariffs on US imports. Suck it, China.

Tit for tat is quite reasonable. Ideally China should match tariff difference. But they are more reasonable. China is imposing higher tariff only for $60Billion, when US is imposing tariff for $200Billion.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

"1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform." But many analysts were skeptical.

Because they were *totally* gong to finally drop their massive tariffs on US imports. Suck it, China.

Tit for tat is quite reasonable. Ideally China should match tariff difference. But they are more reasonable. China is imposing higher tariff only for $60Billion, when US is imposing tariff for $200Billion.

China originally had higher tariffs on many products relative to the US. The new US tariffs are also pretty low so far, only 10%.

Furthermore, China is imposing 60B on tariffs because they can't match the difference tit for tat due to huge disparities in trade. It has nothing to do with them being more reasonable because their other trade policies are pretty unreasonable. If they could win by tit for tat tariffs then they would have done that. The US imports about 600B from China while China only imports about 150-200B from the US.

Finally, trade imbalance and tariffs isn't the only issue. China forces foreign companies to hand over technology to do business in China, and also separately engages in corporate espionage to outright steal intellectual property and technology. Several Chinese nationals were recently caught trying to smuggle suitcases full of advanced GMO seeds to China. China has negotiated and promised for years to change their system (at least since over a decade since the Bush years) but has basically dragged their feet and stalled reforms for over a decade.

 

[CBTex]

Trade war or not, anyone who believes that Alibaba was going to create one million U.S. jobs under any economic climate is delusional.

 

[mbrowne5061]

"1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform." But many analysts were skeptical.

Because they were *totally* gong to finally drop their massive tariffs on US imports. Suck it, China.

Tit for tat is quite reasonable. Ideally China should match tariff difference. But they are more reasonable. China is imposing higher tariff only for $60Billion, when US is imposing tariff for $200Billion.

China is only imposing $60 Billion because they literally have run out of things to tax from the US. They aren't being measure, they're just out of ammo. That is the problem with them fighting a trade war with a country they are a net exporter to. The US meanwhile still have plenty to tax from China. If they want relief, they need to start importing US goods at rates that compete with their Chinese counterparts.

 

[wiyosaya]

From my experience, some products that come from China are cheaply made crap with toxic materials - such at the toaster I bought from Target a few years back that every time I used it emitted a horrible smell and that smell was not burning toast.

However, I wanted to buy an oscilloscope for my home bench a few years back. My choice was between a HP model and a Chinese model that I was exactly the same model as the HP model. I chose the Chinese model because it was 1/4 the cost of the same model sporting the HP logo. In other words, I had found the Chinese manufacturer that was making o-scopes for HP. For my needs, it is an excellent scope, and I must conclude that HP thinks that way, too, since HP is having their o-scopes made for them by this company. I do not need support for it so why should I pay HP 4-times the price for exactly the same item? Just because the HP label was slapped on it? NFW!

 

[Adi6293]

"1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform." But many analysts were skeptical.

Because they were *totally* gong to finally drop their massive tariffs on US imports. Suck it, China.

Tit for tat is quite reasonable. Ideally China should match tariff difference. But they are more reasonable. China is imposing higher tariff only for $60Billion, when US is imposing tariff for $200Billion.

China originally had higher tariffs on many products relative to the US. The new US tariffs are also pretty low so far, only 10%.

Furthermore, China is imposing 60B on tariffs because they can't match the difference tit for tat due to huge disparities in trade. It has nothing to do with them being more reasonable because their other trade policies are pretty unreasonable. If they could win by tit for tat tariffs then they would have done that. The US imports about 600B from China while China only imports about 150-200B from the US.

Finally, trade imbalance and tariffs isn't the only issue. China forces foreign companies to hand over technology to do business in China, and also separately engages in corporate espionage to outright steal intellectual property and technology. Several Chinese nationals were recently caught trying to smuggle suitcases full of advanced GMO seeds to China. China has negotiated and promised for years to change their system (at least since over a decade since the Bush years) but has basically dragged their feet and stalled reforms for over a decade.

China has been taking advantage of USA for far too long in my opinion. USA should ally with EU and bring the manufacturing jobs back, I think most people wouldn't mind paying a little bit more for stuff if that meant they had more jobs opportunities

 

[petert]

"1 million jobs over the next five years by enabling 1 million American small businesses and farmers to sell U.S. goods to China and Asian consumers on the Alibaba platform." But many analysts were skeptical.

Because they were *totally* gong to finally drop their massive tariffs on US imports. Suck it, China.

Tit for tat is quite reasonable. Ideally China should match tariff difference. But they are more reasonable. China is imposing higher tariff only for $60Billion, when US is imposing tariff for $200Billion.

China originally had higher tariffs on many products relative to the US. The new US tariffs are also pretty low so far, only 10%.

Furthermore, China is imposing 60B on tariffs because they can't match the difference tit for tat due to huge disparities in trade. It has nothing to do with them being more reasonable because their other trade policies are pretty unreasonable. If they could win by tit for tat tariffs then they would have done that. The US imports about 600B from China while China only imports about 150-200B from the US.

Finally, trade imbalance and tariffs isn't the only issue. China forces foreign companies to hand over technology to do business in China, and also separately engages in corporate espionage to outright steal intellectual property and technology. Several Chinese nationals were recently caught trying to smuggle suitcases full of advanced GMO seeds to China. China has negotiated and promised for years to change their system (at least since over a decade since the Bush years) but has basically dragged their feet and stalled reforms for over a decade.

China has been taking advantage of USA for far too long in my opinion. USA should ally with EU and bring the manufacturing jobs back, I think most people wouldn't mind paying a little bit more for stuff if that meant they had more jobs opportunities

Socialism at its finest - after capitalism switched to overseas manufacturing for increased gains, lets bring those jobs back to ... protect the workers class? I am pretty sure the decision factors, I.e. companies shareholders and so on will view it your way because many advantages can be derived from .. . oh wait, let me take that back, not a damn thing.

 

[wiyosaya]

China has been taking advantage of USA for far too long in my opinion. USA should ally with EU and bring the manufacturing jobs back, I think most people wouldn't mind paying a little bit more for stuff if that meant they had more jobs opportunities

I totally agree with you. It's the corporations that don't agree with you and choose to have their stuff manufactured elsewhere.

Take crApple for instance. How do you think they have amassed some $250bn, yes, that is a b as in billion, in the bank? On the backs of workers paid slave-labor wages in foreign countries.

Socialism at its finest - after capitalism switched to overseas manufacturing for increased gains, lets bring those jobs back to ... protect the workers class? I am pretty sure the decision factors, I.e. companies shareholders and so on will view it your way because many advantages can be derived from .. . oh wait, let me take that back, not a damn thing.

 

[hexDb]

Alibaba...the knock off version of Amazon, selling cheap chinese junk all over the world.

I do not think so. They can not survive too long like this, if they are selling junk. They have a mechanism to control it.

Sounds like you are confusing aliexpress with alibaba. OFC it is a sub part of alibaba. alibaba's main business is B2B. while aliexpress focus on B2C. your saying they are selling is completely wrong. you get what you want to get you can buy best quality possible depends on the price you can pay. I have bought B2B products as well as B2C products over aliexpress. I could not find even a little difference in quality to similar thing/product bought locally at triple the price

I am not certain about their B2C business. But their B2B business was,is going well and same will continue in future

 

[treetops]

What are the current standings with China we mean to change? And what are trying to change them too? What is the ultimate goal?

 

[Adi6293]

Socialism at its finest - after capitalism switched to overseas manufacturing for increased gains, lets bring those jobs back to ... protect the workers class? I am pretty sure the decision factors, I.e. companies shareholders and so on will view it your way because many advantages can be derived from .. . oh wait, let me take that back, not a damn thing.

The way I see it those share holders don't plan long game, yes they will make more buck right now but later on those in USA won't have money to buy their stuff, it's like automation, eventually robots will take over so who is going to be buying all these products? Something has to be figured out or this greed will end us all

 

[wiyosaya]

What are the current standings with China we mean to change? And what are trying to change them too? What is the ultimate goal?

Excellent question. Perhaps another question that should be asked is what can be done by US citizens and corporations to improve the conditions that are in need of improving.

Current efforts appear to be having the opposite of the desired effect. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-1-billion-in-profits-ceo-says-idUSKCN1M61ZN
https://www.thestreet.com/markets/b...t-slash-14725412?puc=ELinkTST&cm_ven=ELINKTST
http://time.com/money/5406311/trump-china-tariffs-price-increases-walmart-target-macys/
http://www.mcall.com/business/mc-biz-ford-ceo-tariffs-20180927-story.html#