Chinese trade: we're older and should know better
Saturday, September 19, 2009 at 12:52AM ARTICLE: China-U.S. Trade Dispute Has Broad Implications, By KEITH BRADSHER, New York Times, September 14, 2009
The key bit:
For many years, American politicians have been able to take credit domestically for standing up to China by enacting largely symbolic measures against Chinese exports in narrowly defined categories. In the last five years, the U.S. Commerce Department has restricted Chinese imports of goods as diverse as bras and oil well equipment.
For the most part, Chinese officials have grumbled but done little, preferring to preserve a lopsided trade relationship in which the United States buys $4.46 worth of Chinese goods for every $1 worth of American goods sold to China.
Now, the delicate equilibrium is being disturbed.
All this connectivity that has sprung up between us in the past two decades comes with a lot of ability to confound the other with domestic politics. Both sides must resist the temptation to use protectionism to put off much economic change, and we need to be more careful than China, because we've got the experience in tamping down such nationalism, whereas, for China, these are much newer and scarier dynamics. Note the quote about how Beijing freaks when the Chinese netizens freak. This is no way to run a country, but it's the breakthrough/best China's got right now.
(Via WPR's Media Roundup)
Reader Comments (5)
It is way too often that groups with a narrow interest claim the greater good for the nation (it's human nature!)....but the data doesn't show it! Certainly, the Chinese Consume less overall, but they have an immense volume in their rising middle and upper classes.
For example, in China, Buick is a sign of wealth....and we could export loads of higher quality goods to China, but it helps the greater good of both Countries, and so it is difficult!
I wouldn't be surprised if China's leadership is composed of netizens in a higher proportion than in our own Liberal Arts dominated corridors of power.
The interesting thing is how Washington projects its own motivations on the Chinese, specially when it comes to perceived imperial motivations. In part, this comes from lack of understanding of a non-English-speaking society that has a drastically non-European civilization, but a lack of self-awareness is certainly to blame. I have read accounts of US businessmen who say with a straight face that they are amazed how far China has come given it's lack of industrial history...
The Bush administration deserves credit for its relatively sensitive treatment of the China relationship. This contrasts widely with its ham-fisted at best (and criminal at worst) approach nearly everywhere else. The relationship with India is the other exception.
I'd have to say that it's one of the valleys in the peaks and valleys of economic globalism . . mostly the human element of knee jerk reflexivity . .
Common now -- neither side is that DUMB. But seeming dumb can be useful.