Hat Tip OverTheMoonbat for making sure we didn’t miss this segment from last week. This video also explains why Larry Kudlow, Secretary Mnuchin, Secretary Ross and Peter Navarro have tended to spend more time discussing economic policy with CNBC analysts than Fox Business. However, before watching, it is worth revisiting the background.

For three years CTH has explained the challenge in dealing with, or renegotiating with, the Beijing, China ideology. Encapsulated thus in 2018:

[…] China has no cultural or political space between peace and war; they are a historic nation based on two points of polarity. They see peace and war as coexisting with each other. China accepts and believes opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another. Flowing between these polar states is a natural dynamic to be used -with serious contemplation- in advancing objectives as needed. Peace or war. Win or lose. Yin and Yang. Culturally there is no middle position in dealings with China; they are not constitutionally capable of understanding or valuing the western philosophy of mutual benefit where concession of terms gains a larger outcome. If it does not benefit China, it is not done. The outlook is simply, a polarity of peace or war. In politics or economics the same perspective is true. It is a zero-sum outlook. If it does not benefit China, it is not done !

Therefore the economic battle must be carefully waged to deliver a series of alternative thoughts in the mind of Beijing – where they view specific action as their best interest. Any reversal in the current standard of benefit is viewed as a loss; the Chinese will not cede to any losses. To challenge those who hold this zero-sum position, you must first change the current standard. This means China must lose first before the negotiations can begin. The baseline within the negotiation must be reset. Once the baseline position is reset, then negotiation can be viewed by the Chinese as a gain. This is the only way to get the Chinese to agree to any terms. If the baseline losses to China are not currently firmed, such that Beijing and Xi Jinping see their current position as the standard, then President Trump and Bob Lighthizer need to wait longer before engaging. Big Panda must see their diminished bamboo forest as the natural, current, and diminishing forecast status. Only then will Panda engage in negotiations. China must be in a seemingly perpetual stasis of losing before they will contemplate their need to achieve gains. (read more)

That 2018 CTH discussion explains the basic issue in dealing with China. Any financial pundit or Wall Street analyst who does not start their review of President Trump’s trade policy from that foundation would always be lost. This disconnect in basic understanding has been frustrating for years.

However, check out this video segment from Jim Cramer.

For the first time a mainstream analyst is finally starting to “get it”. In a departure from the customary analysis of President Trump’s trade leverage, Mr. Cramer finally sees the Big Picture. WATCH:

.

Hey, it’s progress...