24/10/2017 World Business Report

Now it's time for World Business Report.

The White House says President Trump will talk tough on trade with China

when he visits Asia next week - we look at what's at stake.

Well, this US senator definitely thinks so,

In a moment we will be talking more of doubt the impact of that

congress, because today marks the last day of the five yearly congress

in China, and has confirmed Xi Jinping will be given a second

five-year term. He will be leader for the next five years.

Xi will even have his name inscribed in the party's constitution,

placing him alongside Mao in the Chinese pantheon.

But as Xi consolidates his power, America is ramping up the pressure.

On Monday, the White House said that on his forthcoming trip to Asia next

week President Trump will press China to cease what the White House

calls its "predatory trade practices."

And he will do that by addressing the "problem

goods worth over $319 billion from China, but only exported

But here's the question - will China be in any mood to listen?

Joining us now from Newcastle is Freya Beamish, Chief Asia Economist,

Looking back over the last few days, we're in a Xi Jinping, as suspected,

will be the general secretary of the Communist Party and will continue to

lead China. What else do we know about China's economic programme

that we didn't know, perhaps, five days ago? It has really just

confirmed our impression of how the Chinese leaders view their social

contract, really, with the Chinese people. Xi Jinping was widely

expected to consolidate power. It is not really anything new comedy

edition of his name to the constitution. -- anything new, the

addition of his name. What we have learned is that the focus of the

Communist Party has shifted away from this tunnel vision approach

towards growth targeting and the scope has broadened quite

significantly suit deleveraging, but also to the environment. There is a

recognition that the Chinese Communist Party, to stay in power,

and for Xi Jinping to move forward with his second term, he cannot just

be thinking about targeting growth and squeezing a few more years of

fast growth out of there can be. Actually, that fast GDP growth, in

the course of the past two decades, has actually caused a huge amount of

degradation in the environment, it has been very investment led growth

which has been powered by an excess of savings within China, and has

been very wasteful investment, in many cases. So those resources that

the Chinese people have spent and will not get back and in the course

of doing that, they have actually caused a great deal of pollution

within their own country. What I took away from his speeches that he

is now, along with other leaders, shifting away from this focus on

growth targets. Maybe they will continue to post growth targets in

2018 or maybe they will take a bold move and say, we're not going to

with these growth targets. Maybe that move comes later, in 2019. The

key point for 2018 is that they are going to allow real GDP growth to

move lower and to accept that the lower growth, as long as it is high

quality growth. Let's move on to what is going to be happening next

week as President Trump makes his opinions felt more strongly about

relationships with China and Chinese trade. How does China see this

relationship in terms of trade? Does it see it as a problem? Is it going

to be accommodating to American concerns? Chinese leaders have

enough problems domestically without bending over backwards to give a

victory to Donald Trump. This is about presentation, in the short

term at least, about whether these two leaders can have enough common

ground to go back to the people who keep them in power in their own

countries and presented as a victory, only say, hey, we do need

to worry about a guy any more. In the short term there is probably

enough common ground there. In the long-term, when growth begins to

weaken in the US, say in 2019, growth is already weakening in

China, the longer that goes on the more likely it is these two leaders

will need something outside of their own economy, sadly, to point out and

say, this is why things are going wrong. Thank you very much indeed.

Yesterday, we reported how London is trying to cut pollution

by introducing an extra daily fee on old cars that drive

and Singapore has even gone a step further.

Rico Hizon is is there of course, so Rico, what are they up to?

Are you going to be able to drive into town tomorrow? I don't think

so! From February, I will not be able to, because Singapore will soon

freeze the number of cars on the road. This will prevent citizens

from eyeing new vehicles until the policy is reviewed in about three

years. This frees begins in February and the citystate's land transport

authority said the lack of available land planned investments in public

transport justified this new policy. Singapore is smaller than New York

City and land is a precious commodity. Officials want to ensure

the most productive use of the remaining space. Authorities here

have been controlling the remaining traffic by auctioning off the right

to own a vehicle. With a current population of around 5.6 million

people, the citystate just has around 600,000 cars. But if we take

a look at the pricetag, they are exorbitantly expensive, and among

the highest in the world. A mid-range car in Singapore typically

costs four times as much as it would in the US. This new growth cap

applies to private cars and motorcycles but not to goods and

vehicles and buses. So it is about beating pollution and managing the

lack of space. Rico Hizon, thank you.

The stream of revelations about the part social networks

played in Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 election has

brought Facebook and others even closer attention from politicians,

Executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google will soon be

But they also have good reason to be nervous about the reaction

In New York state, a law will soon be considered that would ban

anonymous adverts on Facebook and rival networks.

The BBC's Michelle Fleury spoke with the State legislator

Todd Kaminsky who is sponsoring the bill.

It kind of spreads like poison ivy and I think it is harmful to the

help of democracy. New York state senator Todd Kaminski is upset about

how social media is deceiving voters in his district. Sunlight is the

greatest disinfectant. He wants to pass a bill which would force

Facebook and other online sites to disclose who pays for political ads

in his state. I come from a district in the suburbs of New York city

where people use Facebook Everly. People have been targeted by

political groups, anonymously, with advertising. When you look at an ad

like this, what it will show you on the bottom is, 320 likes, 80

comments, and you think, what happened my reputation in my

community? Is very hard. Haven't these tactics been employed since

time immemorial when it comes to politics? Yes, and I think in our

time we have done our best to address that. We have regulated

television appropriately so that people no what they are relying on

and how they should evaluate things based on where they are coming from.

The haven't done that would be into it. His actions come after both

Facebook and Twitter said their platforms would use by Russian

operatives in the 2016 US presidential election. I want to

bring that down to a local level. It happened apart from a presidential

election. It happens apart from Russia. There are well-heeled

political organisations in New York state doing it right now in local

races. Facebook has become a really central part of our political

discussion but it isn't regulated, unlike television, where you have to

say where the ad is from, it has become the wild west. Frustrated

lawmakers have asked executives from Google, Facebook and Twitter to

testify on Capitol Hill next month. Head of the hearing, Twitter has

given Congress 201 Russian linked accounts, and Facebook has turned

over 3000 ads ought by entities linked to the Russian government. It

sounds like, in the case of Facebook, you don't think they have

gone far enough. The jury is out. I would love them to be all over this

and be proven wrong. I don't think we should rely on the providers

themselves. I will be back in about five minutes to talk about the

newspapers with Ben Bland.