I don't see what the alleged problem is. Without more information, this looks like the usual tit for tat stuff that goes on between governments on tarrifs. The article says that the Chinese government is raising their tarrif on chicken because we are "dumping" chicken in their market. Dumping is something that generally international trade agreements forbid. On the other hand, all the article says is that the chicken prices are lower than local prices. Duh. Isn't that what drives foreign trade -- someone can produce a good cheaper than someone else and then sell their cheaper product into that market? So maybe the article is at fault for not providing more details.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,186
My problem is the notion of "fair trade" which was the battle cry of not too long ago. We have crap from China dumps on us all the time. What will happen if we tariff most of their slave wage goods they dump on us? That is the problem I have. We could never do that because they own too much of our debt, so as the title says, we are caught by the short hairs. Kind of like bending over, grinning and saying, "thank you, may I have another." Something else that gets me is the fact that we are bound by environmental laws, wage laws, and OSHA. China has none of the above. And If we want to level the playing field, we should insist that we only import products which are manufactured with the same guide lines. Everyone is up in arms about Arizona immigration law/human rights violations, where are they on the China slaves. An embargo on slave products would do a lot to cure two problems. But us fat, lazy Americans want our China mart goods, so the cancer will never be cured.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
J.F.K. hated liberals.
Last edited by burniegoeasily; 09-27-2010 at 11:39 AM.
My problem is the notion of "fair trade" which was the battle cry of not too long ago. We have crap from China dumps on us all the time. What will happen if we tariff most of their slave wage goods they dump on us? That is the problem I have. We could never do that because they own too much of our debt, so as the title says, we are caught by the short hairs. Kind of like bending over, grinning and saying, "thank you, may I have another."
What Burnie said. The US is running budget deficits that are astronomical. 41 percent of that borrowed money is coming from China. The same political pukes who rail and whine against normalizing trade relations wuth Cuba have no problem with buying stuff from communist China. We are paying for our own destruction at the hands of the communist Chinese army.
Actually, China is in trouble and they know it. I went there back in May. Did you know there's 21 million people living in Beijing alone? Anyway, their one child policy is now 30 years old. There's a generation of adults who grew up without brothers and sister and now a generation of kids without aunts and uncles. Parents and grandparents are now spoiling their kids. Childhood obesity is becoming a problem and young adults do not want to work in their factories. There's not enough young people to support their growing population of elderly citizens. It's not all rosy over there.
The air pollution is just as bad or worse than everything you hear about. In the U.S. we would have a revolution over that.
Funny story, I was playing pool and drinking beer with our tour guide one night. Quite a lot of chinese speak good english. We were talking about the differences between the U.S. and China. The best part was when he leaned over and asked, "Can you really buy guns at Wal-Mart?"
My problem is the notion of "fair trade" which was the battle cry of not too long ago.
And it still is..
Quote:
We have crap from China dumps on us all the time. What will happen if we tariff most of their slave wage goods they dump on us?
This one is still being worked on too.. Along with giving large corporations tax breaks to invest in overseas. These so called tax breaks are being used to put us out of work every where.. Enough is enough!
Quote:
Something else that gets me is the fact that we are bound by environmental laws, wage laws, and OSHA. China has none of the above. And If we want to level the playing field, we should insist that we only import products which are manufactured with the same guide lines.
The problem is, is that they do have some of the toughest laws going. That is on the books anyways. There is no one to call foul and make them be enforced like over here. The same thing with Mexico no one to enforce these laws that are on the books. Simply put over there if you complain about it you vanish for ever.. So at least the books look good..
We are trying to change things Burnie we currently have pushed hard on tarriffs on coated paper products coming out of China which is just a start. That one appears to be passing through pretty good. The same thing as stopping all those tax cuts that big corporations are using against us to invest in cheap labor. All this crap needs to stop and sooner rather than later..
Last edited by Phil from Maine; 09-28-2010 at 02:48 PM.
I meant to add other thoughts to my post, but got real busy at work and couldn't return.
Bernie's thoughts are on point. The US has long been a very poor negotiator with Asian countries on foreign trade issues. This applies not only to China but also to Korea and to ***an. Part of the problem is that the team changes so often. In the best circumstances you may have 8 years with the same president. Even with the same president, however, there is no guarantee that the people negotiating foreign trade issues remain the same. Much of what takes place in the Asian sphere depends on one's personal relationships. It takes time to build those personal relationships. People change places before this happens. There is no consistency of view or negotiating policy between the different players. The end result is that we are just babies at the negotiating table. Don't expect this to change until these foreign trade leaders become a professionalized corps that stays in place for decades rather than rotating in and out every two years. By the way, just as a trivial matter, this same sort of ineptitude and lack of cultural knowledge made us very poor negotiators at the peace table during the Korean War. Stalemate and the necessity of a negotiated peace was probably obvious after 12 months of war. The war dragged on and lots of US soldiers were killed and/or suffered in POW camps because our negotiators couldn't play on the same level as the super shrewd and adept propagandist negotiators the N Koreans brought to the table.
There were some other questions raised about the motivations of our leaders. For example, it was suggested we can't negotiate with strength because of our massive reliance on China for bankrolling our deficit spending. That may be the case, but frankly I am guessing there are other factors involved -- probably relating to how politicians either make money now, how they make money after they leave public office, or how they raise campaign funds.
The idea that the Chinese control us because we borrow so much money from them omits to consider what happens to the Chinese if they stop lending us money. How is it in our interest to pay back this Chinese debt? What are the consequences for the Chinese economy if the US repudiates this Chinese debt? If China stops lending us money, do they prompt a debt default on our part? What are the consequences to China when the dollar is devalued? I don't think the proposition that our borrowing from China makes us a puppet of China takes these matters into consideration, and they ought to. Does this mean I advocate deficit spending? No. Personally I don't think we ought to borrow money for anything other than fighting a war, and we ought to be very reluctant to go to war. As an alternate view -- a softening of this view -- I might allow that some borrowing at a "manageable level" for spending on projects that can be viewed as national investments would be acceptable. "Manageable level" would need to be calibrated to the GDP. A person that earns $100,000 year salary isn't thought to be a spend thrift if he has a 30 year mortgage on a $200,000 house. The evaluation might be different if the person earns a $20,000 year salary and has a 30 year mortgage on a $200,000 house. Spending on welfare and other such "consumption spending" doesn't fall under the banner of investment and shouldn't be paid for by borrowing. If it is something we as a nation choose to do, we ought to be willing to tax ourselves equitably to pay for it now.
So let me gets this straight. Burnie calls for higher prices on the store shelves for goods to help the American worker who would have to spend more out of his paycheck in order to buy common goods. Is this suppose to help him?
Falcon, has turned this into a deficit issue, yet I don't understand the connection between our government spending too much and an individual exercising their freedom to make a choice on the items they buy.
Where am I wrong?
__________________
John Adams “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
Ronald Reagan: 'Everybody that is for abortion has already been born'
"I never said I was worth it. I only said I wouldn't do it for less " William F. Buckley Jr.
China places tarrif on American Chicken. Can you say, "caught by our short hairs."
