Trade War with China

[serpentdove]

"The makings of a trade war with China...No one familiar with the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 should relish the prospect of a trade war with China -- but that seems to be where we're headed and probably should be where we are headed. Although the Smoot-Hawley tariff did not cause the Great Depression, it contributed to its severity by provoking widespread retaliation. Confronting China's export subsidies risks a similar tit-for-tat cycle at a time when the global economic recovery is weak. This is a risk, unfortunately, we need to take..." Full text: The makings of a trade war with China

China does what's best for China. It's time for America to do what is best for America.

Related:

"...In late March, Adm. Robert F. Willard, the leader of the United States Pacific Command, said in Congressional testimony that recent Chinese military developments were “pretty dramatic.” China has tested long-range ballistic missiles that could be used against aircraft carriers, he said. After years of denials, Chinese officials have confirmed that they intend to deploy an aircraft carrier group within a few years.
China is also developing a sophisticated submarine fleet that could try to prevent foreign naval vessels from entering its strategic waters if a conflict erupted in the region, said Admiral Willard and military analysts.

“Of particular concern is that elements of China’s military modernization appear designed to challenge our freedom of action in the region,” the admiral said.

Yalong Bay, on the southern coast of Hainan island in the South China Sea, is the site of five-star beach resorts just west of a new underground submarine base. The base allows submarines to reach deep water within 20 minutes and roam the South China Sea, which has some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes and areas rich in oil and natural gas that are the focus of territorial disputes between China and other Asian nations.

That has caused concern not only among American commanders, but also among officials in Southeast Asian nations, which have been quietly acquiring more submarines, missiles and other weapons. “Regional officials have been surprised,” said Huang Jing, a scholar of the Chinese military at the National University of Singapore. “We were in a blinded situation. We thought the Chinese military was 20 years behind us, but we suddenly realized China is catching up...” Full text: Chinese Military Seeks to Extend Its Naval Power

"Yalong BAY, China -- The Chinese military is seeking to project naval power well beyond the Chinese coast, from the oil ports of the Middle East to the shipping lanes of the Pacific, where the United States Navy has long reigned as the dominant force, military officials and analysts say. China calls the new strategy ''far sea defense,'' and the speed with which it is building long-range capabilities has surprised foreign military officials. [Abstract from Publisher]" Works Cited
WONG, EDWARD, and Thom Shanker. "Chinese Military Seeks to Extend its Naval Power." New York Times 24 Apr. 2010: 1. MasterFILE Premier. EBSCO. Web. 28 Sept. 2010. Neh. 5:2–11, Hab 1:1-17, 2:1-10 more

 

[gamera]

Yes, we must reject the "free trade" shibboleths of conservatism and work to increase our manufacturing base, by banning outsourcing and tariffing nations that don't allow unions. Like China.

Is that what you mean?

 

[serpentdove]

Yes, we must reject the "free trade" shibboleths of conservatism and work to increase our manufacturing base, by banning outsourcing and tariffing nations that don't allow unions. Like China.

Is that what you mean?

We should not have trade deficits.

 

[The Berean]

Yes, we must reject the "free trade" shibboleths of conservatism and work to increase our manufacturing base, by banning outsourcing and tariffing nations that don't allow unions. Like China.

Is that what you mean?

How does one go about banning outsourcing? Would that include banning foreign companies from opening up manufacturing plants in America? Would you close down all the Toyota assembly plants in America?

 

[gamera]

How does one go about banning outsourcing? Would that include banning foreign companies from opening up manufacturing plants in America? Would you close down all the Toyota assembly plants in America?

1. Pass a law, banning it. It really isn't that hard.

2. No, foreign companies can invest here all they like. That's not outsourcing.

3. No, why would I close down Toyota plants. That's not outsourcing.

 

[The Berean]

1. Pass a law, banning it. It really isn't that hard.

Good luck with that. I'm not sure you'd getting too many people to agree with you. Is the government going to keep tabs every single business to make sure they do not outsource?

2. No, foreign companies can invest here all they like. That's not outsourcing.

It's outsourcing from their country.

3. No, why would I close down Toyota plants. That's not outsourcing.

See above.

 

[gamera]

Good luck with that. I'm not sure you'd getting too many people to agree with you. Is the government going to keep tabs every single business to make sure they do not outsource?

I hate to tell you this but it already does via tax returns and other means. In any case, outsourcing can only occur via treaties with other countries. No treaty no outsourcing. You seem to be repeating the myth that trade and capital flight just happens and doesn't require laws to occur. Sorry, you're just wrong.

It's outsourcing from their country.

Yep, that doesn't concern me, nor does US law cover that.

Try again.

 

[The Berean]

I hate to tell you this but it already does via tax returns and other means.

So how would the government go about stopping it? There are so many ways around this. For instance I can start a company overseas first then just open up an office in the US afterward and just call it the "US satellite office" even if my real intent is to outsource work from America in the first place.

In any case, outsourcing can only occur via treaties with other countries. No treaty no outsourcing.

Really? I assume these treaties are already in place? A few years ago I worked for a small manufacturing company that opened up manufacturing facilities in Korea and Germany. I don't seem to remember the owner having to sign a treaty with anybody.

You seem to be repeating the myth that trade and capital flight just happens and doesn't require laws to occur. Sorry, you're just wrong.

You seem to be reading too much into my posts or trying to disagree with a position I have not espoused. And besides that isn't the point I'm addressing. Banning all outsourcing seems would be very difficult to enforce. You really want the government to dictate how a company should conduct its business?

Yep, that doesn't concern me, nor does US law cover that.

So you only want to limit outsourcing from America but not to America. Sounds inconsistent to me.

 

[gamera]

So how would the government go about stopping it? There are so many ways around this. For instance I can start a company overseas first then just open up an office in the US afterward and just call it the "US satellite office" even if my real intent is to outsource work from America in the first place.


Really? I assume these treaties are already in place? A few years ago I worked for a small manufacturing company that opened up manufacturing facilities in Korea and Germany. I don't seem to remember the owner having to sign a treaty with anybody.


You seem to be reading too much into my posts or trying to disagree with a position I have not espoused. And besides that isn't the point I'm addressing. Banning all outsourcing seems would be very difficult to enforce. You really want the government to dictate how a company should conduct its business?



So you only want to limit outsourcing from America but not to America. Sounds inconsistent to me.

Yep, I'm actually proposing changing the law to ban outsourcing. It's quite simple and so your complaints here seem misplaced. Of all the law that are easy to enforce, theose involving the movement of capital are the easiest.

As to inconsistency, don't get your point. It harms American to send capital overseas. It doesn't harm us to allow capital to come here. So I'd ban the former and encourage the later. Nothing inconsistent at all since the policy goals are totally different.

But as a practical matter there is little capital flight to the US.

 

[The Berean]

Yep, I'm actually proposing changing the law to ban outsourcing. It's quite simple and so your complaints here seem misplaced.

It's quite simple to assert it, quite another matter to actually enforce it.

Of all the law that are easy to enforce, theose involving the movement of capital are the easiest.

And it is easy to circumvent them. Using my previous example of starting a company in another country. I can also easily purchase capital equipment overseas often at a lower price. Then I open up a US satellite office after I found the company overseas, presto, de facto outsourcing.

As to inconsistency, don't get your point. It harms American to send capital overseas. It doesn't harm us to allow capital to come here. So I'd ban the former and encourage the later. Nothing inconsistent at all since the policy goals are totally different.

So it's not ok to harm America manufacturing but it's ok to harm other countries' manufacturing base? :idunno:

But as a practical matter there is little capital flight to the US.

Toyota, Honda, and Kia have invested heavily in automotive manufacturing plants in the US. That's quite a bit of capital. Shoot, earlier this year Kia opened up a $1 billion factory in Georgia.

As I mentioned before I used to work for a small manufacturing company who opened up plants in Korea and Germany. Are you going to tell the owner that he shouldn't be opening up plants in other countries? :think:

 

[gamera]

It's quite simple to assert it, quite another matter to actually enforce it.

Actually it's quite easy since its based on treaties and we can change treaties any time we want. Once the treaties change, that's it. No more outsourcing. You seem astounded by the fact that it takes a treaty to do business overseas. But it does.

But you can also tax outsourcing or you can just make it nontax deductible (instead of benefiting outsourcing as we do now).

Indeed there are numerous ways to end outsourcing. Why don't you just admit it -- you don't want to end outsourcing -- instead of making this feckless argument that the US government can't enforce its laws. Honestly it can.

And it is easy to circumvent them. Using my previous example of starting a company in another country. I can also easily purchase capital equipment overseas often at a lower price. Then I open up a US satellite office after I found the company overseas, presto, de facto outsourcing.

Starting a company in another country would show up on the books and tax returns of the company here. So that won't work.

And again, you can only "start" a company in another country pursuant to a treaty regarding capital flight. Change the treaty, end of story.

So it's not ok to harm America manufacturing but it's ok to harm other countries' manufacturing base? :idunno:

Uhhh, last time I checked I'm a citizen of this country, and this country is responsible for policies that benefit the country. It's not responsible for policies that benefit other coutnries, especially if those policies harm us.

Is your position now that the US should make economic policy to benefit Chine? Really?

Toyota, Honda, and Kia have invested heavily in automotive manufacturing plants in the US. That's quite a bit of capital. Shoot, earlier this year Kia opened up a $1 billion factory in Georgia.

Heavily is a relative term. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of capital that has left for China.

As I mentioned before I used to work for a small manufacturing company who opened up plants in Korea and Germany. Are you going to tell the owner that he shouldn't be opening up plants in other countries? :think:

Yep. But I wouldn't even have to do that. Just tariff sweatshop nations like Korea (which by the way is highly protectionist), and China, and we wouldn't have to do anything -- plants would open up here overnight to avoid the tariff.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

China does what's best for China. It's time for America to do what is best for America.

Actually, China does what's best for the 3% that belong to the Communist Party.

The question is: Should a country that was founded under Christian principles (and to date still has a few), trade with a totalitarian regime that does the following to its OWN CITIZENS?

Hold people in detention as a means to force families to succumb to sterilization.
Force late term abortion.
Psychiatric torture and the use of nerve-damaging chemicals. Starvation of imprisoned practitioners, and other physical abuses like burning with irons.
http://thenewamerican.com/index.php...lations-in-china-wheres-michael-moore-on-this

 

[King Ogre]

We don't seem to have any difficulty doing business with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

We don't seem to have any difficulty doing business with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

Selwyn Duke
Junk from China
We have heard much lately about dangerous Chinese products that have come to our shores, from the lead paint-laden toys to the poisoned food and toxic toothpaste. And it seems that most anything you buy nowadays has a "Made in China" label on the back. But I ask you, do we really need this junk?

You see, I've observed that it isn't just the toxic products that make the news that are the problem; it seems to me that Chinese goods are shoddily made in general. For instance, there's a certain brand of Chinese-made telephone headsets that I and two people I know had the misfortune of purchasing, a very common brand. I'm not exaggerating when I say that in every case the equipment malfunctioned (to the point where one couldn't use it) within a few months of acquisition. The trash only has a 90-day warranty, too, which is not surprising since it seems to be loaded with a self-destruct mechanism that activates after about 90 days. To place this in further perspective, among the three of us we probably had about 10 of these headsets (owing partially to the fact that a few malfunctioned within the 90-day period and the fact that one or two kindly retailers were willing to replace them even beyond that short time frame), and, again, every one malfunctioned. It's staggering.

In my mind, this is just another reason why I can do without "free trade." How does it really benefit us? While we are enjoying cheaper goods over the short term, our manufacturing base has been destroyed; we're filling the coffers of despotic, anti-American regimes; and we've introduced dangerous products into our market. As for the last point, when we buy produce grown abroad -- in Mexico, South America or elsewhere -- do we really know what chemicals it's treated with? If the product is packaged food, do we know how hygienic these Third World factories are? Does anyone in government really care? We should remember that these Third World nations don't have the regulations or standards we do and are rife with disease and corruption. If their packaging plants were infested with rats (a good bet, I'd say), would their governments really care?

I don't propose that we eliminate foreign trade, but I do support the institution of high tariffs, a practice that accords with American tradition. So, no, I don't believe in free trade -- except within these 50 states.

Getting back to these shoddy products, I find it disheartening that modern Americans so readily accept low standards. Not that long ago, people had the expectation that a product might last a lifetime. Now, when you buy an appliance, the salesman will inquire as to whether you want an extended service warranty to cover the product after, let's say, a year's time. If you don't have confidence that an expensive item you carry will last for at least a few years without breakdown, why are you selling it to me?

This is just another example of the complete breakdown in standards in the West. But, hey, in the same way that people get the government they deserve, I suppose they get the products and services they deserve, too. And there really is a connection there, as our products and politicians seem to decline at the same rate.

 

[aSeattleConserv]

China’s Persecution of Christians

By J.R. Nyquist

On Jan. 11 Julia Duin of The Washington Times reported that three Christians were sentenced to death in China. Their alleged crimes included Bible smuggling, operating an unauthorized church, "rape and hooliganism."

It is a curious, even incongruous list of crimes. One almost smiles at the inclusion of Bible smuggling and rape in the same set of charges. The Kafkaesque absurdity is here apparent. Chinese officials, demented by decades of lying, no longer see the transparent lunacy of their own utterances. Once upon a time these people may have been human beings. Then they joined the Communist Party and became cockroaches in Mao jackets, sucked dry of sincerity, compassion and largeness of mind.

China is a totalitarian state run by madmen. Millions of human beings in China are subjected to slave labor, brutal punishments, un-edible rations and solitary confinement. Their crimes include "economic crimes" and "political crimes." In his book, "Laogai: The Chinese Gulag," Hongda Harry Wu says that we do not know for certain how many millions are enslaved in China’s labor camp system. It is possible that 20 million persons are enslaved in China. According to Wu, "the use of forced labor to provide wealth has been a major task for many Labor Reform Camps."

Wu was an inmate of the Chinese camps for 19 years. His crime was a serious one. He was a bourgeois Christian. Such people were once considered borderline counter-revolutionaries. As every Communist knows, counter-revolutionaries are to be exterminated. A good Communist does not approve the continued existence of such people. By this same logic the smuggling of Bibles into China is a serious crime. It has counter-revolutionary implications. The thinking in Beijing is very straightforward in this regard. Christians ought to be exterminated. But one cannot kill all Christians immediately without making a mess. Therefore, as an old Chinese saying suggests, "kill the chicken to frighten the monkey."

And that is why three Christians have been sentenced to death in China. They are the chickens whose public execution will frighten the monkeys. This helps to set the tone in a totalitarian society.

According to dissident Harry Wu, of the millions imprisoned in China, about one-tenth are political prisoners or prisoners of conscience. These are "ideological enemies" of the Communist state. Non-political prisoners include many who are imprisoned because they have confessed to crimes under torture. In fact, torture was critical in the case against one of the three condemned Christians. Mr. Gong Shengliang, founder of the South China Church, was found guilty of rape because several women were tortured to assure their testimony.

Try to imagine a country in which the police routinely torture both suspects and witnesses. Whether a person is innocent or guilty, it does not matter. With these methods anyone can be convicted of anything. Under this system Mr. Gong’s niece, Li Ying, was also sentenced to death. Another condemned Christian, Li Guangqiang, was sentenced to death for smuggling over 16,000 Bibles into China. One ought to marvel that the authorities would admit to letting so many Bibles slip through their fingers. No doubt there was a shuffling of officers. Some poor incompetent has earned a cold stretch on the Mongolian frontier.

Do you see how things work in China?

President George W. Bush says he is "troubled" by the sentencing of three Chinese Christians. I wonder, though, if this is the right attitude. One thinks of a burnt dinner, a shakey stock market, a sick relative – all very troubling. But the killing of innocent people should rate as something more. Somehow, I think this whole subject will pass quickly from our president’s mind. After all, Bush granted China permanent favored nation trading status. He thinks we should "do business" with these Christian persecutors – these latter-day Neros.

What do you think?

Did you buy Chinese products during the Christmas shopping season? You could hardly avoid doing so, since every other item says "Made in China" on it. Perhaps the thing to do is attempt a little gentle persuasion on the Chicoms. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) has called upon the Chinese to release the three condemned prisoners. "We call upon China as a member of the international community to meet international standards on freedom of religious expression and freedom of conscience."

Poor Tom doesn’t understand that China’s leaders are at odds with "the international community." China's leaders are not within the blessed circle of our "community." They live in what Andrei Navrozov calls "the zone of militarism." They count their nuclear stockpile and look forward to the day when they can spread their system to distant shores.

I’ve often heard it asked: "What if a madman gets hold of nuclear weapons?"

Ladies and gentlemen, madmen already have control of nuclear weapons. And stupid people, in the White House and in Congress, have facilitated this outfitting of madmen. The same can be said of many in the business community who are getting rich trading with China.

I think of Americans who do business with China as I think of corporate managers who traded with the SS during World War II, buying products made at Auschwitz. Getting rich by dealing with a system of labor camps is the same -- whether we are talking about Europe in 1943 or China in 2002. Collaboration with totalitarianism means collaboration with criminals. It facilitates a system of crime. Of course, such collaboration is legal. All the same, it is immoral. Anyone who cannot see the immorality in trading with China is a lost soul. Set all rationalizations about improving conditions in China aside. Yes, material conditions in China have improved during the last 25 years. But China’s military power has also improved. The police regime shows no signs of repentance. Over time it grows less ideological and more violent, more deceptive and fraudulent. Can we not see how corrupting it is to profit by the suffering of untold innocent millions? We have empowered the generals of the Peoples’ Liberation Army while condemning millions of Christians to what George Orwell described as a boot stamping on a human face forever. The fact is, you cannot make nice with devils and have clean hands.

President Bush is troubled that China has sentenced three Christians to death. I am troubled that he has made China his partner against terrorism. I am angry because he allows technology and money to flow into China; that he does not call the Chinese leaders to account. I am disappointed that he does not break off relations with these people, just as we broke off relations with them once before.

China’s defense minister, Chi Haotian, says that war with America is inevitable. The leaders here in America, in politics and business, don’t want to believe the words of Gen. Chi. We imagine that our enemies are dinky little terrorists with weak kidneys hiding out in caves. In reality they are sitting in positions of authority in Beijing, cutting kidneys out of political prisoners if need be. This month three Christians have been condemned to die. One day millions might be wiped out of existence in a few hours by the unleashing of nuclear rockets.

There is an ancient Chinese saying, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step."

How long before our China policy takes a step in the right direction?
http://www.jrnyquist.com/jan23/evil_in_china.htm

 

[Ktoyou]

China does what's best for China. It's time for America to do what is best for America.

You will never see that happen! Smoot-Hawley bah, we should be so smart.

 

[serpentdove]

Actually, China does what's best for the 3% that belong to the Communist Party...

That too.

 

[serpentdove]

Zipperhead throws a hissy fit: :allsmile: [Dollar to Be 'Discarded' by World: China Rating Agency By Ee Sing Wong] "...His sentiment is also reflected in a strongly worded editorial published by China’s official Xinhua news agency on Saturday that is widely seen as a thinly-veiled criticism of U.S. fiscal and economic policies from Beijing.

The editorial called for “international supervision over the issue of U.S. dollars” and the introduction of “a new, stable and secured global reserve currency.”

It also noted that as its largest creditor, Beijing has every right “to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets." Full text: Dollar to Be 'Discarded' by World: China Rating Agency :Nineveh: Re 13:17

 

[WizardofOz]

What is a "zipperhead"?

 

[serpentdove]

What is a "zipperhead"?

It sounds provocative. :mmph: You’d better report it. :sibbie: Eze 38, 39, Rev. 12:10