Overseas media pay attention to the US ＂self-slapping＂ and widely forward international critical articles. – 武汉夜生活网论坛|武汉桑拿论坛|武汉狼盟|武汉品茶网

　　CCTV News:On July 25 th, the "International Sharp Review" of the Central Radio and Television General Station broadcasted the title "Who is the White House in a hurry to send checks to farmers?" The article was reprinted and published by many overseas media.

　　On July 25th and 26th, Germany’s "German-Chinese Report" website, Spain’s Global Iberian Media Client, Italy’s RADIOWE website (facebook, twitter), Portugal’s Lisbon Rainbow Radio website (facebook), Brazil’s Sao Paulo World Radio and Television website (facebook), Brazil’s Rio Headline Radio and Television website (facebook), Brazil’s Romantic Radio website, Brazil’s Business Observer website, Many overseas media, such as Ururau newspaper website, Indian Daily Morning News website, Turkish Economic Observation Network, Chinese PT portal, Chinese headline APP, Portuguese New Newspaper APP(facebook, twitter), European Union Chinese website, West Africa online website, Africa Times website, Greek China website, Japanese Chinese business website and so on, have forwarded them one after another. On 26th, Hong Kong Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po published this article. The main reports are as follows:

　　US President Trump said on Tuesday that he would provide an agricultural subsidy of up to $12 billion to help American farmers tide over the growing trade war between the United States and China, the European Union and other countries.

　　Prior to this, one of the reasons why the United States provoked trade wars with many trading partners was that their products exported to the United States had so-called government subsidies. Now, the White House has also begun to issue subsidies. Isn’t this hitting yourself in the face? ! Trump’s move once again proves that economists have always warned the White House, that is, "there is only a double loss in the trade war, and there is no winner."　

　　The essence of trade is win-win, whether it is cooperation or competition. However, this US administration seems to be paranoid and firmly believes that trade is a zero-sum game. Obviously, I bought bread to fill my stomach, and I have to accuse the bread seller of being a winner and a loser. This logic is too twisted!

　　The White House’s use of taxpayers’ huge funds as agricultural subsidies is the inevitable result of its imposition of punitive tariffs on goods from global trading partners, which eventually leads to retaliation from many parties. Among them, the American agricultural economic belt is one of the key targets of retaliatory measures by various countries. Those American farmers are precisely the victims of Trump’s trade war, and they are swallowing the consequences of the irrational and outrageous tariff policy of the White House.

　　As the world’s largest exporter of agricultural products, the export of agricultural products in the United States reached a record high in 2017, with a trade surplus of $21.3 billion. Since the trade war, trading partners including EU, Canadian, Mexican and China have been forced to impose retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products originating from the United States. The USDA estimates that these countermeasures will cause about $11 billion in losses to American agricultural products.

　　The United States has always accused other countries of subsidy policies, saying that this practice violates the provisions of the WTO. Now, the White House has picked up taxpayers’ money and done what it has always been illegal in its own eyes. In a sense, this is also a set of votes for the mid-term elections in November this year. This sanctimonious double standard is overbearing: "Only I can set fire, but you can’t light a lamp".

　　However, can the White House check really solve its problem? As Blake Horst, director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture, said, unless the White House policy changes, the pressure on American agriculture will continue. Short-term or temporary remedial measures cannot solve the substantive problems. Brian Kuhl, executive director of Farmers for Free Trade, believes that American farmers need contracts instead of subsidies, and with contracts, they can make plans for the future with peace of mind.

　　Previously, Trump believed that the trade war would be beneficial to the US, and the trade war would be easy to fight and win. Today’s results show that things are not as simple as he thought. This is because the US government’s subsidies to agriculture will inevitably bring out a series of related problems. Alaska Senator Lisa Mokowski is asking: What about manufacturing? Energy field? What about oil and gas industry? What is the standard of subsidy or not?

　　The New York Times pointed out in the editorial that those manufacturers who need to pay high prices for steel and aluminum because of the trade war need subsidies? Do workers who are unemployed because Harley-Davidson motorcycles transfer production lines need subsidies? Do producers of bourbon affected by the trade war need subsidies?

　　If the United States continues to subsidize other industries affected by the trade war, then the Trump administration will face many challenges, on the one hand, the problem of money bags, on the other hand, the legitimacy of subsidies. As for the legality of the latest US$ 12 billion subsidy, it is estimated that many countries will submit it to the WTO for adjudication.

　　In fact, the White House is very clear about how to solve the situation. Republican Senator Ben Sass said that a trade war is like cutting farmers’ legs, and then the White House plan is to give them a pair of pure gold crutches worth $12 billion. "The government’s tariffs and relief will not make the United States great again, but will come again in 1929 (the Great Depression)."

　　Senator rand paul tweeted: "Tariffs are equivalent to increasing taxes on American consumers and producers. If tariffs punish farmers, then the answer is not welfare, but the abolition of tariffs. "

　　Analysts pointed out that the United States continued the tariff war by granting subsidies to farmers. On the one hand, it reflected its double standards and "two-faced" approach in international trade, which showed the hypocrisy and hegemony of the United States. On the other hand, it also reflected the Don Quixote-style approach of the United States, which not only created a lot of uncertainty for other countries, but also endangered the global multilateral trading system and brought serious chaos to its own country.

　　A number of overseas media forwarded international critical articles: