WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED
For what purpose does the China-basher from California et al. rise?
TRADE WITH CHINA
Worried about a Chinese sweatshop worker taking your job away? Pat Buchanan and some free-trade-bashers in Congress are coming to your rescue. They know you're a worthless troublemaker who can't do anything other than work in that factory and who needs that "job" as a babysitting slot, to keep you off the streets.
The free-trade bashers and the China-bashers have formed an alliance and are on the warpath. What is all the fuss about?
The following are taken from C-SPAN during debates in Congress on trade status for China.
Pete Stark (D-California):
"Passage of PNTR will lead the U.S. corporations doing business in China simply to be able to continue to avoid stringent environmental regulations."
And it does not follow from this that the U.S. companies should then not do business in China. For those companies to pull out of China would do nothing to improve the environment in China. No one would be made better off. China would pollute its environment just as much, without these companies, arguably even more.
Yes, some companies relocate factories to China partly to escape tougher U.S. regulations on the environment. But there's nothing wrong with that. They are complying with the wishes of both countries by doing this. The only complaint would have to be that Chinese are incompetent to deal with their own environment, and the U.S. must treat them as inferior and overrule them for their own good because we know better than they do what is good for them.
John Tierney (D-Massachusetts):
"A vote for permanent normal trade relations with China gives up favorable United States trade agreement enforcement rights."
If Tierney has in mind legitimate trade terms such as copyright protection agreements, then there are ways to enforce those terms, if necessary, through very specific trade sanctions. But the copyright problem is slowly being corrected. It took years to accomplish the same goal with Taiwan and Hong Kong, which also ignored U.S. copyright protections. This problem area does not call for revocation of normal trade status. China acknowledges that it must conform to the rules on copyright protection.
The prescription drug industry in the U.S. puts up with effective violation of patent rights on the drugs it produces. This is the same as copyright violations. Countries like Canada impose the prices on the drugs, and if the pharmaceutical company doesn't agree, Canada threatens to simply license the drug to one of its own companies, in effect stealing the drug from the company which produced and patented it. This is just as egregious as what China and some other countries do in violating copyright protection. Yet we generally do not retaliate against this with trade sanctions.
We are making more progress in dealing with China and copyright protection than we are in dealing with these countries who effectively violate patent rights on prescription drugs. In fact, the latter is not being corrected and no progress is being made. Yet we continue to trade with these countries. We do not stop trading with a country because there is a problem with copyright or patent protection. We should not single out China for special treatment.
The idea that we need enforcement of "trade agreements" is somewhat nonsensical. What is there to "agree" on? Just start trading. Open our market, invest in China, build the factories, do business. Have some rules about property ownership and protection, contract enforcement, courts, taxes, etc.
The only problem comes when we try to impose extraneous demands on China, such as for human rights, or if we demand that they open their market and buy U.S. products. We buy their products because we want them, because the products are a good deal, not because they demand that we buy them. We're not obligated by some treaty or trade agreement to buy these products. Nor should we impose any terms requiring them to buy our products.
"It relinquishes forever any ability to use our leverage, . . ."
Those who want to restrict trade with China are not really interested in "leverage" to pressure China into reform. If this is what they want, they should try to convince other countries to join the U.S. in some form of united effort to restrict trade with China. If they had any reasonable case to make against China, they would be able to convince other countries to join the U.S. in such an effort.
The real concern of the China-bashers comes down to 2 main points: 1) job losses to China, and 2) a nationalistic instinct of fear because of China's emergence in the future as possibly a second rival superpower.
". . . our existing periodic review processes to at least try to affect universally acknowledged violations of human rights, workers' rights, religious intolerance, the spreading of technological and other information for dangerous weaponry, environmental degradation, . . ."
Other countries have environmental "degradation" but are not denied PNTR. Other countries also spread technological information which can be used to produce dangerous weaponry. The U.S. spreads such information and historically has been the world's foremost exporter of military weapons, and the number of people killed by use of these weapons probably numbers into the millions.
As a practical matter it is not possible to control the spread of such information.
The future security of the world must be based on something more substantial than a supposed restriction of information flows to other countries. In the world of the future, all critical technologies will essentially be available to all other countries, despite any effort to restrict it. No fortress mentality, such as trade sanctions, will protect the U.S. or any other country.
Violation of trade agreements
[Tierney, cont'd]". . . and a long history of non-compliance with virtually every bilateral agreement negotiated between the United States and China in recent generations."
But what about "trade agreements"? What purpose is served by these agreements? Why is it necessary to enter into a so-called "agreement" in order to trade with a country?
When you enter a particular store for the first time, do you need to first draw up a "trade agreement" with that store? Why should you have to wait for politicians to make some "agreement" with another country in order for you to be able to buy something produced in that country?
All arguments about "trade agreements" are really just an attempt to prevent trade between countries. These agreements are entered into only because certain opponents of trade insist upon such agreements in order to try to at least minimize trade between the countries.
What legitimate purpose is served by any of the terms contained in these "agreements"?
Here is an agreement to buy almonds, or reduce tariffs on almonds:
From the Almond Board of California
"The May 24th vote on the China trade agreement is welcome news for the California almond industry. As California’s number one export commodity, we depend upon open global markets, which the action will greatly ensure. Shipments of almonds to China have grown over the past three years from 7.5 million pounds in 1998 to 21.8 million pounds through April 2000, making China our fourth largest market out of more than 100 export countries. The action will decrease tariff rates from 30% to 10% over the next four years and will bring China closer to WTO status. We expect a 100% increase almond shipments to China within a few years."
What is the point of demanding that China reduce its tariff on almonds? Does China want the almonds or not? If they want them they will reduce the tariff. If they really don't want the almonds, but are reducing the tariff in order to get some concession from the U.S., why is it good to pressure them to reduce the tariff? Is it that the U.S. has too many unemployed almond growers running around getting into mischief, and we need a market for almonds in order to get these people off the streets?
We should stop this "trade agreement" silliness and just open our market to China (and all other countries) and invite them to do the same. We don't need these long-winded 500-page "trade agreements" in order to do business with China.
If the opponents of trade insist that we must have these nonsensical "trade agreements" as a condition to do trade, then we will probably enter into them, because we will do what we have to do in order to put the free-trade policy into effect, or in order to move closer to free trade.
But that's all these "trade agreements" are. They are nothing of substance, and it really doesn't matter whether they are enforced or not, or whether anyone complies with them. They are done only to appease certain opponents of trade who imagine that a trade "balance" is necessary in order to stop the sky from falling, or who really want to prevent trade because they are in an uncompetitive business or job and are afraid to have to compete against the foreign imports.
If China reneges on its agreement to reduce almond tariffs, is this some kind of a backstab against America? Has China taken us to the cleaners? No. The U.S. benefits from the Chinese imports, regardless of whether China opens its market. It is best if they keep their agreement, and actually if they reduce these and other tariffs to zero. But the U.S. consumers benefit from cheap Chinese exports, regardless of whether China extends a similar benefit to its consumers. It is in their own interest to open their market, just as it is in America's interest to open its market.
Because of the benefit to both countries to open their market, there is really no need to have contracts, or "agreements" or pledges by each country to open its market so much if the other agrees to open its market by so much. There's no need to retaliate against China for failing to keep such agreements as this.
Most of the terms which China violated were demands that they open their market in one form or another. Also, demands that they stop exporting prison labor products. Such demands as these should not have been imposed in the first place. Or rather, were imposed only to appease U.S. opponents of trade with China. Yes, there was major non-compliance by China with these demands. Which was probably known in advance anyway, and doesn't matter, because such demands are extraneous and have nothing to do with what is good for U.S. consumers, and it is not the proper place of the U.S. to police China's internal practices or their trade policies and presume to punish China for its misbehavior, any more than it is another country's place to punish the U.S. for something it does which they don't approve of.
It is in China's iterest to open its market to U.S. products. Sooner or later they will finally learn, and they will do what is in their interest. Meanwhile, it is not true that the U.S. economy is injured by the so-called "trade deficit" or that the "trade deficit" will doom the U.S. economy. No one has ever explained how or why the trade deficit is a bad thing. Except that it results in job losses, which is a fraudulent argument (see "Job Losh" in the next section below).
Now on the other hand, there is one violation by China which is serious and gives legitimate reason for some kind of retaliation or enforcement measure. This is the problem of copyright violations. There is no reason to demonize China over this, just a need to take firm action to correct it. And the problem is slowly being corrected. It has required threats of trade sanctions, threats to be carried out if necessary. There is no need to revoke NTR over this, because the targetted threat of penalties is working.
Here is an excerpt from the above summary of violations which pertains to the copyrights problem:
Violations of U.S. Intellectual Property Rights
Section 182 of the Trade Act of 1974 as amended (also known as Special 301"), requires the USTR to identify "priority foreign countries" that fail to provide adequate and effective protection of U.S. intellectual property rights (IPR), such as patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets, or deny fair and equitable market access to U.S. firms that rely on IPR protection. The USTR is directed to seek negotiations with the priority foreign countries to end such violations and, if necessary, to impose trade sanctions if such negotiations fail to produce an agreement.
In April 1991, China (along with India and Thailand) was named as a "priority foreign country" under Special 301. The USTR began a Section 301 investigation in May 1991, claiming China's laws failed to provide adequate protection of patents, copyrights, and trade secrets. In November 1991, the USTR threatened to impose $1.5 billion in trade sanctions if an IPR agreement was not reached by January 1992. Last-minute negotiations yielded an agreement on January 16, 1992. China promised to strengthen its patent, copyright, and trade secret laws, and to improve protection of U.S. intellectual property, especially computer software, sound recordings, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals.
In June 1994, the USTR again designated China as a Special 301 "priority foreign country," because it had failed to enforce recently enacted IPR laws. In particular, the USTR cited the establishment of several factories in China producing pirated compact and laser disks, as an example of China's "egregious" violation of U.S. IPR. In addition, the USTR stated that trade barriers had restricted access to China's market for U.S. movies, videos, and sound recordings, and that such restrictions encouraged piracy of such products in China. On February 4, 1995, the USTR announced that insufficient progress had been made in talks with Chinese officials and issued a list of Chinese products, with an estimated value of $1.1 billion, which would be subject to 100% import tariffs. However, a preliminary agreement was reached on February 26, 1995, and a formal agreement was signed on March 11, 1995. The new agreement pledged China to substantially beef up its IPR enforcement regime and to remove various import and investment barriers to IPR-related products. Specifically, China agreed to:
Take immediate steps to stem IPR piracy in China over the course of the next 3 months by taking action against large-scale producers and distributors of pirated materials, and prohibiting the export of pirated products.
Establish mechanisms to ensure long-term enforcement of IPR laws, such as banning the use of pirated materials by the Chinese government, establishing a coordinated IPR enforcement policy among each level of government, beefing up IPR enforcement agencies, creating an effective customs enforcement system, establishing a title verification system in China to ensure that U.S. audio visual works are protected against unauthorized use, reforming China's judicial system to ensure that U.S. firms can obtain access to effective judicial relief, establishing a system of maintaining statistics concerning China's enforcement efforts and meeting with U.S. officials on a regular basis to discuss those efforts, improving transparency in Chinese laws concerning IPR, and strictly enforcing IPR laws.
Several U.S. firms charged that IPR piracy in China worsened in 1995, despite the 1995 IPR agreement, and pressed the USTR to take tougher action against China. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), an association of major U.S. copyright-based industries, estimated that IPR piracy by Chinese firms cost U.S. firms $2.3 billion in lost trade during 1995.
On April 30, 1996, the USTR again designated China as a Special 301 "priority foreign country" for not fully complying with the February 1995 IPR agreement. According to the USTR, while China had cracked down on piracy at the retail level (launching raids and destroying millions of pirated CDs and hundreds of thousands of pirated books, sound recordings, and computer software), it had failed to take effective action against an estimated 30 or so factories in China that were mass-producing and exporting pirated products. U.S. officials called on the Chinese government to close such factories, prosecute violators, and destroy equipment used in the production of pirated products. Further, the USTR stated that China failed to establish an effective border enforcement mechanism within its customs service to prevent the export of pirated products. Finally, The USTR indicated that China failed to provide sufficient market access to U.S. firms, due to high tariffs, quotas, and regulatory restrictions. Shortly after, the USTR indicated it would impose U.S. sanctions on $2 billion worth of Chinese products by June 17, 1996, unless China took more effective action to fully implement the IPR agreement. On June 17, 1996, USTR Charlene Barshefsky announced that the United States was satisfied that China was taking steps to fulfill the 1995 IPR agreement. Barshefsky cited the Chinese government's recent closing of 15 plants producing illegal CDs and China's pledge to extend a period of focused enforcement of anti-piracy regulations against regions of particularly rampant piracy, such as Guangdong Province. The Chinese government also promised to improve border enforcement to halt exports of pirated products as well as illegal imports of presses used to manufacture CDs. Further, the Chinese government reaffirmed its pledge to open up its market to imports of IPR-related products. Finally, Chinese officials promised to improve monitoring and verification efforts to ensure that products made by Chinese CD plants and publishing houses are properly licensed.
The USTR has stated that China has made great strides in improving its IPR protection regime, noting that it has passed several new IPR-related laws, closed or fined 74 assembly operations for illegal production lines, seized millions of illegal audio-visual products, curtailed exports of pirated products, expanded training of judges and law enforcement officials on IPR protection, and has expanded legitimate licensing of film and music production in China. In April 1999, the USTR announced that the Chinese government had issued a new high-level directive to all Chinese government entities directing that they use only legitimate computer software, a move described by the USTR as a "milestone in China's efforts to increase intellectual property protection."
The USTR notes, however, that IPR piracy remains a serious problem in China, especially illegal reproduction of software, retail piracy, and trademark counterfeiting. Chinese enforcement agencies and judicial system often lack the resources needed to vigorously enforce IPR laws; convicted IPR offenders generally face minor penalties. In addition, while market access for IPR-related products has improved, high tariffs, quotas, and other barriers continue to hamper U.S. exports; such trade barriers are believed to be partly responsible for illegal IPR-related smuggling and counterfeiting in China. The IIPA estimated that IPR piracy in China cost U.S. firms $1.7 billion in lost sales in 1999-an improvement over 1998 losses which were estimated at $2.6 billion.
There were similar problems for years with Taiwan and Hong Kong, which also disregarded copyright protection. And other countries too. China is not unique, and the solution is not to revoke NTR.
And there are similar problems with Canada and other countries which effectively violate drug patents by threatening to disregard these patents and license the drugs to their own companies if the U.S. company does not agree with their unilaterally-dictated price for a certain patented drug. And nothing is being done to penalize these countries for this effective violation of patent rights.
This doesn't necessarily mean that, by analogy, we have to ignore the copyright violations by China or some other countries. We might use the threat of trade sanctions for this specific purpose, even though at the same time we ignore Canada's infringement on patent rights for drugs. What is wrong is to assume that there is something special about China, that this one country is uniquely guilty of this kind of misbehavior and so trade with it must be condemned because of the copyright problem. There is nothing unique about China. We are successfully pressuring the Chinese to move in the right direction regarding copyrights.
But there is a danger of overusing trade retaliation threats against China. It is not necessary to demand market access or abolition of prison labor or labor law reforms and human rights reforms under threat of trade retaliation. Such demands only diminish the effectiveness of retaliation in the few cases where retaliation is really justified.
There is a difference between legitimate threats of retaliation, such as for copyright violations, and the nonlegitimate retaliation. The difference is that legitimate use of threats are done for the purpose of protecting U.S. consumers, while the nonlegitimate threats, such as ones which demand human rights changes or other changes in domestic policies in China, have nothing to do with benefitting U.S. consumers. Copyright and patent protection benefit U.S. consumers, because it rewards producers for their creative contributions and thus encourages them to create more for the benefit of consumers. But pressuring the Chinese to change their internal laws does nothing to benefit U.S. consumers.
If retaliation is restricted to copyright protection, it will be more effective, and the threatened retaliations can be more severe. But if the U.S. issues a long list of demands and threats, going beyond legitimate demands such as copyright protection, an impasse will finally occur, and the result will be reduced trade with China, which is bad for U.S. consumers. The U.S. economy is benefitting from Chinese and other foreign imports. Even if this trade is unbalanced, it still increases the U.S. standard of living. Again, no one has proved that the trade deficit is a bad thing or will lead to bad results, despite all the propaganda you have heard to the contrary.
(Can you prove that the trade deficit is bad? If so, click here to earn $500.)
Which brings us to the next topic:
[Tierney, cont'd] "It does so despite the fact that it will have an adverse effect on jobs of many who are the least prepared to deal with such a loss."
No U.S. worker who loses a job because of foreign trade has any excuse to whine. U.S. workers can see clearly that many factories are closing and relocating abroad, also that many of their jobs are being replaced by computers and robots. It is their responsibility to adjust to the changing conditions of the marketplace. Unless they're just irresponsible crybabies.
The increasing competition and changing conditions are good for U.S. consumers, and thus most Americans benefit from the changes, even though some of the least competitive workers are made worse off. The uncompetitive workers are to blame for their condition, not society, not the companies, not the government, not China, not consumers.
"And that's mostly because we've failed, in advance of expanding ever-opening market initiatives to put in place effective transition assistance and worker training and retraining and health care for those who are unable to afford it through the unexpected job losh [sic]."
No, "those who are unable to afford it" must get their heads out of their butt and take responsibility for their lives. What should be put in place is not special programs for the irresponsible and the least productive and least competitive members of the workforce. What should be put in place are opportunities for everyone, not special subsidies/programs targetted only at laid-off workers who were short-sighted.
The right approach is not to reward people for being irresponsible, but rather, to provide opportunities for all, including education and job training, to enough degree that everyone has a reasonable chance to improve his/her life and get into the economy and contribute and earn their way, on their own, without getting any special treatment at other people's expense. Those who are responsible and productive are not obligated to subsidize and bail out those who are irresponsible and unproductive.
"And all of this is done unnecessarily. Contrary to those who misinform us with claims that granting PNTR to China benefits the United States, that is innaccurate, and it is not accurate as inferred and misstated, that if we fail to give PNTR to China we would give a benefit to the European Union that we would not get in the United States. Legal analysis shows otherwise."
This is an important point. Because it brings out some of the mythology of the free-trade debate into the open. The basic myth is that the purpose of free trade is to open markets for U.S. products, and expanding markets is what is necessary for U.S. prosperity. This is where the free-trade promoters go astray and find themselves mouthing the same snake-oil economics as the free-trade-bashers.
It is not true that exports are more important than imports. The real purpose of free trade is not to provide more markets to producers. Its purpose is to serve consumers better. The U.S. is better off today precisely because of the better service to consumers, because of the cheaper imports, which helps to hold down inflation and brings more choice to consumers, including businesses, which are also consumers (such as those which buy steel and benefit from cheap steel which was "dumped" into the U.S. market to the benefit of the U.S. economy generally).
If the Europeans take advantage of China trade while the U.S. does not, this will benefit them and improve their economies. Not because China will become a market for European goods, but because European consumers will benefit from Chinese imports.
Tierney's point is mostly correct, because the U.S. is not really in a vicious battle with the Europeans to "capture" the Chinese market. There is some Chinese business, but most of the trade is in the form of exports from China. And even most U.S. companies there are producing for export to the U.S., not to serve Chinese consumers. The Chinese consumer market will develop slowly.
Meanwhile, promoters of free trade should be honest and point out the benefits of trade to U.S. consumers, and quit pretending that the purpose is to "capture" the Chinese market for U.S. products and U.S. jobs. They should stop pandering to U.S. unions and other protectionist forces, and put away the phony economic theories about jobs and markets, which is not the purpose of the economy.
They should stop pretending that U.S. producers are in a race with the Europeans to see who will grab the Chinese market, and that if the U.S. doesn't get there first they will "lose" that market to the Europeans. They know this is hogwash. But there's a lot of idiots in America who want to hear this pablum, because they're worried about the "job losh," i.e., primarily the loss of factory jobs, which are becoming mostly babysitting slots for perceived worthless scum who could be easily replaced by cheap labor.
Scum? If they're good for anything other than working in that factory, then why are we obsessed with preserving that factory job for them? Why not let that factory be relocated, to China or Mexico or wherever it's most efficient, and let these U.S. factory workers go somewhere else in the economy where we need them? The insistence that the factory must remain there for them is essentially a statement that these factory workers would be worthless without that factory and would only become a burden on society.
Can't we ever get away from this insulting jobs mythology? Can't anybody finally begin to tell the truth, i.e., that the function of business is not to provide jobs, but to serve consumers? Why does the jobs babble continue, on and on, like a broken record, like 90% of Americans are of too low intelligence to see through it?
Do YOU see through it?
Bart Stupak (D-Michigan):
"Today's Detroit News quotes a business executive on China, and I quote: 'We're not interested in China per se, but free trade.' This executive said it all: Proponents are not interested in fair trade, but free trade. Where the United States once again freely negotiates away our markets, our jobs, our values, our ideals, and our beliefs."
What values and ideals is he talking about? Are "jobs" a value for their own sake, regardless of any value to consumers? What kind of "value" is that? If your job does not serve consumers, what "value" is that job? If a foreign worker can do your job better/cheaper than you can, why shouldn't you be replaced by that worker? What "value" does that go against?
The "values" and "ideals" Stupak is talking about are actually the lowest, degenerate and primitive instincts. He's talking about your right to your job, even though the consumers would be better off if you did NOT have that job but instead if it were done by cheap foreign labor. In other words, your right to make consumers WORSE OFF rather than better off. What kind of "value" or "ideal" is that? What is the work ethic, if it means that you, the worker or producer, can end up making consumers worse off rather than better off?
No, the right value is that which says that every producer/worker must EARN his/her way by making others better off. Each worker must serve consumers, by competing, by doing the best job possible, at the lowest price to the customer. Keeping your price down and your quality up is the right value, the result produced by competition. And if you don't compete, then you lose, your business fails. And it's your fault, and thus YOUR responsibility to improve and become competitive.
That's the correct value for America. Not the parasitic "value" which says you are entitled to your "job" no matter how you perform, even though a foreigner could do it better; not a "value" which makes a leech of the uncompetitive worker and shields him from having to compete, thus forcing the consumers to effectively subsidize that worker in a disguised form of welfare. When everyone has to compete and produce, it makes everyone better off. But if some are let off the hook and are protected against having to compete, they become parasites leeching off those who do have to compete.
So the so-called "values" or "ideals" which Stupak refers to are those of leeching off others, of being parasitic and being subsidized, because one happens to be a U.S. worker, and it is somehow a basic "value" of America that all its workers, when they can no longer compete, are entitled to remain uncompetitive and to leech off the others who are competitive and truly productive.
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio):
"I voted for African Growth and Opportunity and CBI [Caribbean Basin Initiative], because those regions of the world had never had an opportunity to have a trade agreement with our country. But today I rise in opposition to permanent normalization of trade with China."
Well, this is not the purpose of trade. The proper purpose is to benefit U.S. consumers (plus also those U.S. producers which are competitive and are serving consumers, but not those producers which are uncompetitive). It is not done out of benevolence, but out of self interest.
It is in this country's interest to trade with Central America and with African countries and with any country in the world which has something to offer us. Either for import or export or both. So Jones' reason, "because those regions never had an opportunity to have a trade agreement with our country" is fallacious. The correct reason to trade with them is that it is OUR opportunity to trade with them, to benefit from them, to get something from them that will make us more prosperous.
"I have said that PNTR should stand for 'Perpetrating a Notion of Trade Rreform.' Perpetrating a notion that China will change, perpetrating a notion that environmental conditions will improve, . . . and perpetrating a notion that human rights will improve."
The trade debate is perverted into a debate about whether trade will produce these extraneous results. And the promoters of trade are forced into making wild promises that trade will solve all these extraneous problems. Why should they have to make such extraneous promises?
There is a fundamental principle here: Allowing people to trade freely across boundaries is good, because it benefits those traders. There is no need to insist on other benefits in order to justify the trade. At most, it is necessary to show only that the trade does not make problems worse. Even if the conditions in the other country remain the same, and there is no improvement, the trade is still a good thing because of the benefit to the traders.
The only way the trade could be a bad thing is if it produces bad conditions which make people worse off than they would have been otherwise. There is no reason to believe that trade does this. The onus is on the opponents of free trade to prove that free trade leads to harm, not on the proponents to prove that free trade leads to social improvements, like more human rights or a better environment.
When you do business as a consumer, you are not obligated to show that the company you buy from is made better -- that the store owner will treat his wife better or will drive more safely or take better care of his yard as a result of this business with you. It is not your obligation to police those you buy from to make certain they are living an upright life, being kind to animals, etc. The trade is good regardless of the living habits of the other party to the transaction.
If the other party is doing something wrong or illegal, that can be dealt with at some point, but a buyer or seller is not obligated to take on the responsibility or cost of imposing morality onto the other party. When you buy something at a shopping mall, it isn't necessary for you to check into the morals of the shop owner or of the owner of the mall as a condition for doing your shopping there. When you buy a car, you don't need to investigate into that seller's family life to see if he is being faithful to his wife, for example, and then refuse to deal with him until he first straightens out his personal life.
Again, trade sanctions against a country might work if there is united action by several countries to impose these sanctions. If the purpose of the trade restrictions is to make China improve its human-rights behavior, then the logical thing to do is to get other countries to agree and to participate in the sanctions. If China's criminal behavior is so extreme as to justify such action, other countries will recognize it and join the united effort.
". . . let's not fool ourselves, let's not reward China for non-compliance. I tell my son Mervin who's seventeen 'You do right, I will help you. You do wrong, you will get nothing from me.' That's what we should tell China: You do right, we will trade with you. You do not, we will not."
Again, if China's behavior is really criminal enough that they should be punished, surely there are other countries which will agree with us and join a united effort of trade sanctions of some sort, such as was done with South Africa. The truth is that the U.S. does not have such a case against China.
China's behavior will change gradually, over generations. Since the U.S. began trading with China, conditions in China have improved. Over a period of 30 years. But to demand improvements from week to week, or to demand no steps backward in the overall process, is to impose a condition which contradicts all the lessons of history.
Haven't women in the Middle East made a little progress toward equal rights? Yet, how long has this taken? And how much farther is there to go? Is it not reasonable to assume that more progress will be made? And yet, this progress is not gained by making threats and refusing to trade or imposing sanctions on those countries. And the problems in China's society are centuries older than those of the Arab and Muslim countries.
Two hundred years ago when the U.S. practiced slavery and West European countries did not, those countries did not impose trade sanctions on the U.S. They bought U.S. agricultural products which came from slave plantations. No one European country could have had any effect on the U.S. by imposing sanctions. But united, perhaps they could have had an effect. Why didn't they unite together and close their market to the U.S., and demand an end to slavery as a condition to resume normal trade relations? Should they have done this? Would it have made a difference?
If it is immoral for a country to trade with another country which violates human rights, then England should have stopped buying cotton from the southern states. This trade with slave states was more egregious than the current U.S. trade with China. The U.S. slave economy 200 years ago was more criminal than the current China "slave" economy. The U.S. slave economy was based upon a practice of abducting Africans out of their native environment and culture and pressing them into an alien environment and subjugating them to rulers who were of a different race and culture.
But the current Chinese "slave" economy is based upon a self-imposed system in which a Chinese elite ruling class imposes a kind of "slavery" onto all the other Chinese. This is a system which, for better or worse, the Chinese people have chosen. Over centuries they have evolved this system on their own. It is their system, it is their problem, it is their way, which perhaps they need to try to change. But this is much different than a system imposed by aliens onto people who are kidnapped away from their own homeland and forced into the alien system.
Thus, if you think it is immoral to deal with the Chinese because of their evil "slave" system, how much more immoral was it for the British to trade with the southern states. Have the British made amends for this travesty? Have they at least issued an apology to African-Americans and admitted that their country was criminal to trade with the southern states? Where is their apology? Where is the condemnation of them for their past criminal trade policy of buying cotton from the slave states?
Should the Europeans have boycotted the southern states and demanded an end to slavery? Suppose they did. Even if such sanctions would have made a small difference, possibly speeding up the process toward emancipation, it would have worked only if all the major European countries had banded together to impose the sanctions. No one or two of them alone could have succeeded (and neither can the U.S. alone succeed in changing China through trade sanctions). But more importantly, such punitive action from other countries was really not necessary, because it was inevitable that the U.S. would end slavery on its own. Even if the Civil War had been won by the South, slavery would gradually have ended.
If a country needs to make internal changes, it will do so on its own schedule. China will change on its own. And it need not necessarily adopt all the changes we might want it to. Perhaps the Chinese want to keep some of the harshness of their social system and do not share the U.S. values of individualism and laissez-faire. Perhaps this system has produced a discipline among Chinese which explains why Chinese immigrants in the U.S. are more successful than the average White American and why their children perform better in school and why the crime rate among Chinese-Americans is lower.
Instead of trying to impose American values onto China, why not simply interact with China, engage the Chinese where we can meet on common ground, such as in trade, and then let both systems co-exist side-by-side, for generations, for centuries, and let either one change or evolve as it sees fit? If the American individualistic values are the superior, they should finally win out after 100 years, or 200 years.
The obsession to change China today, to force it into our value system right now, with punishments and rewards, is an example of American impatience and demand for instant gratification. Unlike South Africa, the Chinese social system is a self-imposed monocultural system going back at least 2500 years. It is actually remarkable, and a tribute to capitalism, that so much change has taken place in that country in less than 50 years. This degree of change surpasses all the change in that society for 2000 years.
Why interrupt this process which, in the long run, is producing gradual progress? Why disrupt it by imposing threats and punishments and ultimatums and by presuming to dictate a particular agenda to China, treating China like an immature child to be supervised by us? That's not the approach which produced all the recent progress since the days of Mao.
So much for human rights and reform in China. Now let's get back to the "job losh" -- that's what this is really all about.
Peter Visclosky (D-Indiana):
"The average American in 1998 made a nickel less in real terms for one hour's worth of labor than they made 18 years before that in 1980."
Let the uncompetitive whine all they want. The truth is that we get the best overall performance of the economy by rewarding the competitive and penalizing the uncompetitive. The economy will improve for the uncompetitive when they stop their whining and improve themselves, i.e., become more competitive.
"And what we're engaged in today is a race to the bottom. A race to pay the lowest wage. A race to give the least benefits."
WHY DON'T YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT "RACE TO THE BOTTOM," Mr. Hot-air pandering politician-demagogue?
Why is it, somehow, when it's wage-earners we're talking about, all of a sudden competition becomes a dirty word? Why is competition wonderful when it's businesses that compete? Why is competition among businesses a race to the top, progress, and good and healthy for the economy? But among wage-earners? oh no! That's a "race to the bottom" which will turn us into a 3rd-world country if we don't stop it.
Why? Explain that logic. We all agree it's healthy for small businesses, even the tiniest independent contractors, to compete. The shoe-shiner, the window-washer, the mom 'n pop store, the gardener -- all should compete, keep down their prices, undercut each other, beat out the competitor for the customer's business.
But the wage-earner? OH NO, NOT THAT! THAT'S DIFFERENT! Not our dear precious wage-earners! NEVER! We can't ask these poor helpless little wage-earners to compete? Have a heart!
Why? What's wrong with the sniveling little crybabies that they can't compete like everybody else? Are they worthless little parasites who can't survive without leeching off the rest of us? If it's good for the economy for all the others to compete, then why not these ones also? What's the difference?
Because they're poor? But most of them are not poor. Some are even wealthy. And the ones complaining the loudest are middle-income factory workers who have higher incomes than many people in business. There are plenty of poor entrepreneurs, independent contractors, who are worse off than the average auto worker, for example. Why should we feel sorry for the auto worker, who makes $20 an hour plus benefits and vacation, etc., but not for the small shoe shiner who makes less than half that? Yet THAT SHOE SHINER MUST COMPETE, and it's not a "race to the bottom" when he tries to undercut his competitor. And likewise the small mom 'n pop store owner, and many others.
So all this babble about a "race to the bottom" is pure demagoguery, a pandering to wage-earners, who happen to be a majority of the producer class, who are happy to benefit from the competition of others, but seek some excuse to avoid competing themselves.
"A race to not have a safe workplace."
There is no safety problem in the workplace which the workers themselves could not solve. It is their own irresponsibility which causes these problems to go uncorrected. They themselves don't obey the rules, they don't use the safety equipment which is provided to them, they routinely disregard the simplest safety precautions, just as many car drivers neglect to use their seat belts.
If the cost or inconvenience to them is too great for them to take the necessary precautions, then it is also too great for the employer. The workers should either undertake to fix the safety problems themselves, at their own expense, or they should quit that job if they think it's too unsafe to work there. If they refuse to do either of these, then they are admitting that the benefits of the job, the income they're paid, is greater than the safety risk, and it is better to work there and assume the risk.
There is risk to any job. Even commuting to work is a risk. You cannot work at all if you are unwilling to assume risk. And when you take on risk, you must pay the consequences yourself when you suffer an accident. If you don't want to take that risk or assume that responsibility, then QUIT THAT JOB!
Don't say you have no choice! If going hungry is the only alternative, then you must decide which is worse: going hungry or risking your life in that factory. The fact that you are reduced to making such a choice is no one's fault but your own. No one else should be made responsible for your safety or your life.
Workers, acting as a group, are perfectly capable of solving any legitimate safety problem in the workplace, on their own. They have nothing to complain about. Any "race to the bottom" is completely their own fault and no one else's.
"A race to not have to worry about the environment."
If it is necessary to impose world standards, that will have to be done by some form of international united effort. When that happens, companies will then have to comply with those international standards. As it is now, multinational corporations do not reduce the environmental standards of countries below what they would be if the multinationals were not there. All that pollution would exist anyway, even without the multinationals, and in many cases the pollution would actually be worse than it is.
"We owe this generation and the next generation of American workers hope in their economic future. We do not give that to them today."
End of China Trade, page 1.
Continue to page 2.
Return to Free Trade Forever front page