> Once China is not part of the trade flow between US and X country (Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, etc), the total trade for China will fall even more than 18%.
If those are actually further up the value chain leading to exports to the US (as you seem to suggest), those would largely be imported goods.
Edit: Moot point really. Those would just be a consequence of manufacturing happening in China. It's better to have a direct look at the amount of manufacturing happening in China, instead of guessing at parameters directly which are actually a dependent on it. That would be like trying to guess whether a taxi company will buy less fuel if you're no longer a customer (maybe they'll have other customers instead), and on top of that wondering whether that's a bad thing. It's just the wrong aspect to focus on.
> US is the largest consumer market in the world. Japan is second at 1/3 of the size of US. EU consumer market is mostly fragmented. There is just not that much singular consumer demand outside of US.
Which apparently doesn't seem to mean much - as proven by the fact that plenty of brands have no trouble selling basically everywhere despite "fragmented" markets. Also what do you mean when you say the EU consumer market is fragmented? The main selling point of the EU is that it is literally a single market.
> Plus other countries are enacting tariffs on China as well - India for example.
India already appears to be backpedaling on their earlier posturing.
> There are lots of countries that have way cheaper labor costs than China, there's no reason for the foreign companies to go there in the face of increasing tariffs.
The most noteworthy tariffs are China <-> US right now. There's little reason for non-US companies to go elsewhere, especially now that Chinese labor and manufacturing is going to become cheaper again - emphasis on manufacturing, not labor, since the infrastructure and know-how already exist in China.
"If those are actually further up the value chain leading to exports to the US (as you seem to suggest), those would largely be imported goods."
The Chinese factories that produce goods destined for US, also produce goods for other countries, leading to trade between China and those countries. When factories move to Malaysia or Vietnam, those trades disappear.
"as proven by the fact that plenty of brands have no trouble selling basically everywhere despite "fragmented" markets" . I was addressing your point "they can still manufacture goods intended for anywhere else in the world there - just not for the US" . You're basically losing 30%-40% of your sales. That's not something that can just be brushed off.
"30-40%" is literally all exports from China. You're saying that if the US doesn't trade with them, there won't be a single buyer of Chinese goods anywhere in the world? That's pretty far fetched.
92% of the US speaks English proficiently and 80% primarily. Cultural differences across the US are miniscule compared to the differences between EU countries.
Turn on a TV in NYC and in North Dakota, the vast majority of the content is exactly the same. The only differences are local news and advertising for local businesses.
>Cultural differences across the US are miniscule compared to the differences between EU countries.
Linguistically and culturally, the US has massive differences within it. And the fact that the media landscape does not reflect the breadth of cultures within the USA, has been a point of contention for a very long time.
>Linguistically and culturally, the US has massive differences within it.
Culturally: Compared to a small European country--yes. Compared to the EU-- not at all.
Linguistically: 92% of the US speaks English. Within that group, dialectical differences are relatively small even compared with much smaller countries like the UK.
African American vernacular english is the only major dialect that is different enough to really impact communication, and even then, the majority of African Americans (and speakers of other smaller regional dialects) can easily understand the prestige dialect.
Although many of them are only represented by relatively small populations, the US has a much wider range of languages and language groups than Europe, as it has the languages brought from Europe, the creole languages from the slave trade, as well as the remaining native languages.
That's the relevant part for the purpose of calling it a single market.
>the US has a much wider range of languages and language groups than Europe
Unless you're talking about Indigenous languages with less than 10k speakers, that's not true because Europe has experienced significant immigration over the past decades.
If you are talking about those languages, it's irrelevant because fewer than 150k people speak them, and only a few thousand aren't also fluent in English.
If those are actually further up the value chain leading to exports to the US (as you seem to suggest), those would largely be imported goods.
Edit: Moot point really. Those would just be a consequence of manufacturing happening in China. It's better to have a direct look at the amount of manufacturing happening in China, instead of guessing at parameters directly which are actually a dependent on it. That would be like trying to guess whether a taxi company will buy less fuel if you're no longer a customer (maybe they'll have other customers instead), and on top of that wondering whether that's a bad thing. It's just the wrong aspect to focus on.
> US is the largest consumer market in the world. Japan is second at 1/3 of the size of US. EU consumer market is mostly fragmented. There is just not that much singular consumer demand outside of US.
Which apparently doesn't seem to mean much - as proven by the fact that plenty of brands have no trouble selling basically everywhere despite "fragmented" markets. Also what do you mean when you say the EU consumer market is fragmented? The main selling point of the EU is that it is literally a single market.
> Plus other countries are enacting tariffs on China as well - India for example.
India already appears to be backpedaling on their earlier posturing.
> There are lots of countries that have way cheaper labor costs than China, there's no reason for the foreign companies to go there in the face of increasing tariffs.
The most noteworthy tariffs are China <-> US right now. There's little reason for non-US companies to go elsewhere, especially now that Chinese labor and manufacturing is going to become cheaper again - emphasis on manufacturing, not labor, since the infrastructure and know-how already exist in China.