Sure. I don't have problem with that. But mostly I think it's a misunderstanding between these two countries due to the drastic difference between their living standards. So we can't simply demand them using the measurement in our standards. I bet chinese can use a whole lot less money to live comfortably the way we do.
The playing field is not leveled. It's tilted against them. We give them little pieces of green papers and they have to work the ass off to make us goods. And now that they want to use the green papers they've gather through hard work and austerity to buy something for a change, you're going to change the rules in the middle of the game and act self-righteous at the same time. Why do you think despite all the rhetoric we haven't done anything except to further and further our trading relationship with them, it's because it's to our benefits to trade with them.
Now we are getting somewhere. I agree, and we have similar situations with probably the majority of our trading partners, but there is a huge difference because a country like Columbia isn't buying up enough of our debt to end up having some level of control over us. I am actually quite glad that China has embaced the free markets, but that doesn't mean completely open unregulated markets. Is the article correct? honestly I don't know, but I think it poses some serious questions that we should be concerned about.
Ben I'm ethnic Chinese but how has that got to do with anything? You're ethnic Jewish. Are you saying among all different kinds of Americans, ethnic Jewish is the only ethnic group that's loyal to America?
We are clearly not talking about the same thing. I am not talking about the Chinese laborer needing to take a hit. They produce a nice car for $19,000 sale price that a japanese or American comany would have to charge 35-40,000 for. That means from a trade standpoint, the playing field is not level, and it is not titled against the Chinese (at least not against the Chinese government). To the extent that a company can make a profit on efficiency and good management, I always say bravo, but there is something more at work here. Take China out of the equation, and let me ask yo this. Is it ok for Nike to operate sweat shops to produce things like soccer jerseys for a buck or two?
I just went back to read your link. The author said: I would think the author is quite honest in facing these issues. He said that this may be good for us. Maybe he is right. He blamed Bush for it, but I tend to disagree. Americans' bad habit of spending more than they earn and buying lots of junks did not start after year 2000. Overall, consumers should welcome the cheap Chinese products. It's a win-win situation for both countries. American government instead should focus on controlling inflation, in food prices, in housing costs, in health care costs, in education costs...We should not blame others for our own bad habits and our own problems.
It's not OK for anyone to operate sweat shops, NIKE included, just as it's not OK for anyone to break any laws. But is it OK for it to take advantage of the inexpensive labor cost in China and find a way to make goods for a very low price? Of course, that's what free captalism is all about. As to the leveled playing field, your understanding of the term "leveled playing field" is faulty. A playing field is leveled if both sides are following rules agreed upon. Just because Ali could dance on the floor and the other boxer's punches are landing in air doesn't make the game unleveled in the sense that the other player now has the right to ask Ali to stop moving around. When Boeing sells a few planes to China, the margin it makes is more than 1 billion pairs of shoes made in China combined. Should the Chinese complain? Because obviously the Americans are having a technological edge and using your logic the "playing field is not leveled"?
That is not even close to what I am saying about a level playing field. Instead, look at a US Shoe factory and a Chinese shoe factory. If the US factory has to install scrubbers on its smoke stack to meet the requirements of the clean air act, and the Chinese factory does not, then the Chinese factory has an advantage precisely because the rules are not the same. That is just a hypothetical, and honestly, I have no idea whether China has stricter environmental laws than we do or not. My premise that the playing field is not level is due more to anectdotal evidence than anything else. I posted the article because I thought it was interesting, and because I would like to know more. Some want to dismiss it because the on-line version has a typo and because the guys exchange rate is a little old. That's fine. It may be that the trade imbalance is good for us as it allows us to stock our stores with cheap stuff, but it seems to me that that is good only in the short term.
That you're misinterpreting Chris as being anti-Chinese. Iranians too. You can't trust white European-Americans, they're always getting us loyal Americans mired in European wars and wasting our money on a gazillion pointless bases in Europe. They pretty much run the country so you better be careful not to offend them. Seriously, it's not about loyalty or racism, it's about crucial economic issues.
The rules are the same in the sense when the two countries negotiate a trade pact, it's understood that there are gonna be competitive advantages on both sides. And in fact it's these different competitive advantages that make a trading relationship a constructive one. The Chinese have the advantage of low labor cost (since they have a lot of people who are still in poverty but are dedicated workers). The Americans have, among a lot of other advantages, the advantage of low money cost (since we could print money like there's no tomorrow and the rest of the world still take it as good money). This trading relationship between the two countries has benefited both countries immensely. Ask Greenspan and he'll tell you in detail. Don't let some foolish politics break a good thing. I'm not writing this because I'm pro-China at the expense of America or vice versa because as a Chinese American, I'm pro-both (but honestly I don't know how this has become an issue until Ben made it into one). And the trading relationship between the two countries has been a win-win for the last two decades.
Your connection of me being ethnic Chinese and my interpretation or misinterpretation of a particular view indicated the opposite. What you're saying is it's not racism when you're not the one on the receiving end of it.
What I'm saying is that no one here is anti-Chinese. Any Serbian, Mormon, or ethnic Chinese that is worried about that shouldn't be.
I'm not sure whom you're speaking on behalf of when you say "no one". But I've seen quite a few anti-Chinese posts on these boards. Do you really need me to bring back those obvious "fvck China" ones? Using your logic, obviously in your view as a Jew, everybody is too busy being anti-Semitic to be anti-Chinese. But just in case you think I'm anti-Semitic, let me assure you that nobody here is anti-Semitic, so the Jews, Mormons, and Eskimos need not get concerned.
On the politics forum? You've repeatedly complained about imagined anti-Chinese sentiment when discussing supremely important trade issues. You also thought Chris was being racist. I might not have worded things properly, but relax man. Of course there has been a lot of anti-ethnicChinese sentiment in America. Far, far worse than anti-Semtism. There's no doubt about that, but that has NOTHING to do with people being worried about a $170 freaking billion dollar annual trade deficit with China. I'd like more Chinese to move to America. For that matter, I'd like more Chinese-Americans to become American Jews so they can experience the joys of both anti-Semitic and anti-Chinese bigotry, but the trade deficit is a f-ing huge problem.
And to think this could have been a worthwhile thread. *sigh* FWLIW, economic nationalism is all but dead and it was killed not only by unpatriotic first world CEOs who, if they hired "expensive" workers from their own countries, might not be able to buy their mistresses that extra fur coat or another Lexus for Christmas but by you too, O Great Sovereign Consumer, who will only buy goods at WalMart because they're made in the Third World (including China) where your tax dollars go to fund the American Emplire that supports terror regimes (well except for China, but that's only because they still call themselves "communist" *snort*) that routinely deny their workers the right to organize among other human rights and are therefore a few cents cheaper. But don't blame anyone. We're only following the diktats of laissez-faire capitalism where the CEOs laugh at the muddleheaded patriotic Luddites who think the answer to this complex and multi-faceted problem is to "buy American". Hey, if American CEOs won't hire American (unless they can play state against state for tax breaks), why should anyone buy American? But nah, it's all the fault of the Chinese keeping their currency value too high. Yep, sure it is.
That's a valid point. I agree that the fault primarily lies with greedy American corporations and amoral consumers.
You're acting surprised. Nevermind me. Take care of yourself first. Maybe you have imagined a lot of anti-semitism and acted on your imagination. And maybe I have when it comes to anti-China sentiment. But have I ever used the fact that you're a Jew to discredit your views? The racism that you're saying that's far far worse than even anti-Semitism has got nothing to do with the fact that China bashing has become American politicians favorite way to get a few cheap votes? The fvcking trade deficit was what we were talking about until you showed up sharing your little wisdom. I like Jews too. That doesn't make it OK for me to keep pointing to your Jewish whatever body part and write a song about it now does it?
Fine fine fine. Sorry for offending you. You can call Bush,DeLay & other pro-Israel Texans the Texas Jewboys to make things even. Meanwhile, I'm worried as hell about the astronomic trade deficit as well as the continued erosion of middle class jobs.
Hey I sell medical supplies if you or dreamer are ever in need of anything at all. We are running a special on new crutches if you two have any that are worn out. Let me know. I could use the business. If you two come by the shop, please use the back entrance by the dumpster. It's for our special customers.
Finally, you get the point. Some of us are advocating the negotiation of more realistic trade pacts. We are advocating that you don't continue to give "most favored nation" trade status to countries that shoot at our aircraft that are flying in international airspace. We are advocating penalizing countries that use forced prison labor in their export industries. If you think that is being "racist" then you have a curious interpretation of that word. As for China-US trade, it has not been a "win-win". Once again the short-term interests have won out over the long-term view and have given away US developed technology for cheap goods, This is a win-win in only a very stilted, short-term view of the world. As for me, I do not buy Chinese products for these very reasons. If enough people band together and start to hurt their markets, perhaps they will get a clue and change some of their policies.
You're viewpoint is far too US-centric...I can't blame you for that, but in this era its required that people see things on a more global scale. I can't begin to tell you the damage opening up the Chinese market to US farm products has destroyed farmers throughout China. How can Chinese compete against ADM and other American farm conglomerates that get subsidized out the ass from the US government? Your choice to not by Chinese products is a noble one, but its not going to make a differenece, because everyone else isn't willing to spend more money. And what are you buying instead of Chinese made goods? Which countries are they coming from? It's impossible to buy all US and you can't demonize China without realizing the same thing is going on throughout Asia. The US economy couldn't be so successful without importing so many goods from China. The stability of China's market is the only thing that didn't turn the Asian economic crisis a few years back into a world disaster. The US needs China and China needs the US and that's the reality of the world we live in.
Well, I don't think you meant "required". My viewpoint is definitely US centric, and I would extend that to say that each country should be <<pick country>>-centric. What I see is that US corporations that take a short term view that endangers the long term health of the US economy. Doing the type of en masse substitution of another nation's industrial capability for one's own is short-sighted economic policy. It doesn't matter if that other country is China, India, Ghana, or (in a historical context) the United States. What I want the US government to do is to establish a trade policy that penalizes nations that engage in labor, environmental and management practices that are prohibited by US law. These countries then have the choice of accepting the penalties or changing. As for the agricultural competition, if I were a Chinese decision maker, I would probably want to do the same. There is an old saying about what do you call a country that exports raw materials and agricultural products and receives manufactured goods in return- a colony. Well, I don't think we should let ourselves become a colony of the Chinese (or anyone else). You are probably right. I am atilter at windmills and always have been. I didn't buy Japanese or Norwegian products until they stopped whaling either. It took me three weeks to find an LCD monitor that wasn't made in China. Our economy's success is not dependent on China, at least not yet. That China needs access to the US market to continue it's current growth is indisputable. What we do not need is to continue to treat a totalitarian government as though they are our friends. They are not.
I always say that it is not my place to tell others when they should or should not be offended by something, so to the extent that you found the thread title, and the 1982 Pete Townsend album offensive, I apologize. You should know, however, that the album title is a drug use reference and has nothing to do with Chinese people or anatomy. I don't recall that there was a specific song on the album by the same name, but I could be wrong. My reference was more a pun about Bush being a Cowboy, and I thought it was clever to fit it into an album title that too my knowledge was never the subject of any protest or claims of racism. It seems you were likely unfamiliar with the album from your initial reaction, so your response is understandable, but by now you should know that there was no link to a song about Chinese body parts.