Kristof: More sweatshops, please
posted at 11:00 am on January 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
In the new administration, we will likely see a shift away from free trade dressed as concern over working conditions and compensation for workers abroad. The Obama administration will probably use the term “sweatshops” frequently in rationalizing a more protectionist trade policy than its predecessor. Nicholas Kristof warned a week ago that focusing on sweatshops as a human-rights abuse obscures the opportunity they represent in real life:
Before Barack Obama and his team act on their talk about “labor standards,” I’d like to offer them a tour of the vast garbage dump here in Phnom Penh.
This is a Dante-like vision of hell. It’s a mountain of festering refuse, a half-hour hike across, emitting clouds of smoke from subterranean fires.
The miasma of toxic stink leaves you gasping, breezes batter you with filth, and even the rats look forlorn. Then the smoke parts and you come across a child ambling barefoot, searching for old plastic cups that recyclers will buy for five cents a pound. Many families actually live in shacks on this smoking garbage.
Mr. Obama and the Democrats who favor labor standards in trade agreements mean well, for they intend to fight back at oppressive sweatshops abroad. But while it shocks Americans to hear it, the central challenge in the poorest countries is not that sweatshops exploit too many people, but that they don’t exploit enough.
Kristof writes almost exclusively about poverty for the New York Times, and no one will confuse him for a corporate lackey under any circumstances. He puts a vital element back into the argument over trade and labor standards: context.
Options for fighting poverty anywhere fall into two categories: welfare and investment. The former only prolongs the misery, while the latter raises standards of living and builds an economy that can lift people out of poverty permanently. In order to get investment, especially in manufacturing, the target has to promise more economic benefit than competing sites, and labor costs are a major component of that calculus.
That doesn’t mean that the US should not insist on safe working conditions and limits on child labor, but it does mean that we need to understand compensation in the context of the local economy. What sounds like exploitation wages for Americans are often quantum leaps in compensation and safety for poor people in third-world nations. Without a “sweatshop” option providing safe jobs and significant wages, children live — and die — in the garbage dump for a meager subsistence living. They dream about these “sweatshop” jobs, working indoors with a chance to earn real money and not die under the wheels of garbage trucks.
The context of wages and compensation for these manufacturing jobs has to be understood before we walk down the path of Smoot-Hawley trade policy once again, this time with righteous fervor against non-existent exploitation. Hopefully, the new administration will listen to Kristof before triggering a collapse in global trade that would turn this recession into another full-blown depression. (via QandO)
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
This article is basically stolen from an old Paul Krugman one. Back when he was an actual economist.
http://www.slate.com/id/1918
JamesB on January 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM
I am actually in one of those service jobs you describe, but burger flippers are also part of the service industry. I am curious which is being produced by our economy, before it went boom, so do you have any stats that supports your argument. Are we producing high paying service jobs, and not burger flippers?
I am not pro union. I am pro free trade, but we are willing allowing the world to take advantage of us in trade agreements and that has to change.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
The Republicans could not do anything without Democratic cooperation because of the filibuster in the Senate.
As to your reflexive belief that the war was unneccessary, I just look at the source.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
We have managed to produce low paying service jobs to replace high paying manufacturing jobs.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I suppose we could always keep the “one man, one job” theory alive, continue making things like cars the same way Ford did in his original factories. One man, holding a hammer, whose only job was to hit a specific rivet on the car frames, all day long.
Much better idea than investing in robotics which do the job faster and safer, robots which require other companies employing other people to design and manufacture.
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
That’s still more than my husband and I made this year, and this is the best year we’ve ever had. Two years ago we didn’t even break 40k gross combined, but those are the times you learn how to take care of your money.
I learned then not to be wasteful and to look for a good price instead of always going name brand and that Whole Foods is a luxury not a grocery store.
I’m sorry. I realize for you and your boyfriend that you’re sacrificing, but you have that luxury, something many Americans, especially right now, don’t have.
Growing up in a Christian home, I have, and frankly I can’t name a single one that was effective, at least not in my 27-year lifetime. Can you?
I mean they also boycotted NYPD Blue before it came out, and that show was on for 12 seasons.
I wouldn’t argue that it isn’t important but rather that it isn’t practical. Many people simply don’t even have access to American companies with American goods. And even those who do often need to do serious research to discover them.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 12:32 PM
Walk into any major retailer, and look at the labels, then look at the relative prices for these goods. That $4.00 T-shirt is a bargain. It also provided a daily meal or two for a family in Bangledesh. Both parties were satisfied. If foreign made goods were embargoed tomorrow, the net result would be more pricey T-shirts and fewer meals for the laborer who made the item. Both parties suffer.
Economics and trade are a constantly moving balancing act if allowed to work to the advantage of producer and consumer. Muck up the works at any point along the way and the advantage for producer and consumer is lost.
coldwarrior on January 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
I guess you missed my post from earlier, so while you’re lecturing on theory.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
That would be Congress, which the GOP controlled up through 2006 and wherein the GOP saddled the nation with two wars that could not be magically unfunded in 2006.
You might want to ask President Ogabe why he voted to authorize funding for the wars during his embarrassingly short tenure as senator in 2005.
Or his secretary of state who voted to authorize going to war in the first place.
“Do you believe in magic, in a young girl’s heart….” (who sings that, btw?)
Bishop on January 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Man, the levels you will go to avoid challenging your misconceptions is truely impressive.
1) You really need to study up on what the standard of living then vs. now.
Then:
800 sq ft, two bedroom home, no garage. No AC, no central heat, no dishwashers, microwaves etc. Single AM radio, few owned tvs.
Few owned cars, most walked to work.
today:
2200 sq ft, 4 bedroom 2 (sometimes 3) car garage. Central Air, central heat, Multiple steroes, TV’s in almost every room, including the kitchen. Modern appliances throughout the house. 2 or 3 cars. Computers, etc.
As I said before, quite your whining about how tough you have it, and check how your ancestors lived.
And while the middle class has shrunk a little bit, it’s mostly because many have them have become rich. The ranks of the poor have not been growing.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Consider this: ten dollars salary in the USA might, after taxes, buy a very plain dinner for a small family. That same money might represent two weeks income for a poor family overseas.
You can argue that our entire international currency system is a form of protectionism, making it hard for some people to break into the marketplace. There are plenty of counterarguments, and plenty of other effects as well: oceans separate potential producers from potential markets.
Here’s something to consider: the isolated rich and the desperate poor tend to become or support guerillas. Prosperous people do not; they are close enough to the source of their prosperity–their own labor–that they realize what really causes what.
Though the popularity of the fashionable Left in this country may challenge that assertion …
njcommuter on January 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM
The problem is the lobbyist are strong for these countries…and the explanation can get complex, so the public won’t understand the impact, or how against trade agreement it is for China to tie their currency to our dollar.
If you state that, 90% of the people would say “so what?”…in fact I would bet most of the posters have no idea of the financial impact it has on us…nor would they have any idea that it is against our trade agreements…yet China keeps doing it and no one sops them.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Even though than ran in 2006 specifically on a platform to stop the war, something that cutting the funding would have done.
Depends. Most of us truly believe “country first.” We simply disagree with the Left on what that means.
Cynthia McKinney? I may have “inhaled” in the past, but it wasn’t crack cocaine. You guys need better PR.
Genuinely glad to hear it.
To an extent probably. Only, I’m generally opposed to the government watching businesses too closely or having much authority over them. Our politicians are often the most corrupt and the most incompetent.
Esthier on January 23, 2009 at 12:41 PM
For instance I open up aa business and through hard work and effort it grows and I employ 100 people. I pay a good wage etc. After a couple of years, through the hard work of these 100 people I make big money. I decide to expand the business. Because of the cheap labor in say china I decide to build the new facilities in China. I hire chinese workers and low and behold I find that China doesn’t allow me to sell the product made in the USA within china as it affects chinese jobs. I’m okay with that I’ll just sell the chinese made product in china. It’s actually better for me as I can keep more of the income as profit. Being a smart and greedy busines man I decide I can expand in china to cover the 100 US workers. So I do that and eventually lay off the 100 US workers and close the office here. I then import the product from china cheaper than I can make it in the USA. Smart businessman I am. I am getting rich and all it cost was 100 American Jobs. Who cares about them. I sleep good at night. Why shouldn’t I. After all I’m part of the global economy. As for the 100 workers well, i’m sorry about that. I feel bad about it. If they can’t find other jobs that’s their fault not mine. If all the other business owners in the USA do the same as I did we can form a club. We can talk about unemployment in the USA and how the taxes are rising to pay it. Eventually I would probably move to Canada and get out of this third world country. Why should I pay taxes on my chinese income to pay for the unemployed.
Remember in you have not been layed off yet your job is probably next. Once it’s gone it’s gone. Maybe you will be fortunate and get a job as a greeter in Walmart.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
You first may want to bone up on our trade agreements…then you can try to lecture us on “comparative advantage” if it exists.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM
When I was young and stupid, I recall having a disagreement with my step-mother on this very topic. I was railing against “exploitation” in third world countries by evil capitalists who made profits disproportionate to what they were paying for the labor. My step-mother gently tried to make the point about local economies and how the work and the wages were a godsend to the locals who lived in squalor.
Geez. Hire a teenager while they still know everything.
Older now, and no longer stupid, I fully understand this. And I also understand that capitalism is the only moral economic system in existence.
cheeflo on January 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Thank you. It’s what I couldn’t find the words to say.
However, the theoretical will never work bcs nations ALWAYS will have their own interests:trying to screw us over at our expense.
So while I have no problem with buying goods from other countries, I’m mad as hell that my govt place rules on my way of business that greatly affect my profit margin while they import the same product I produce by using methods considered illegal here.
How is this fair?!
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Government subsidies have prevented that, I would hardly call the “ranks of the poor” a success story, unless you consider socialism a success…look at the education of the “poor”, and tell me how good it is, and how good the future looks for them.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
I love it
Liberals Bashed Bush over so called sweatshops
Which liberals all owned STOCKS in
and now that the Liberals are in absolute control of everyting they dont want to get rid of them
Hell might cut into pelozis profit margins..
Abolute frigging hypocrites..
I say throw all the LIBERALS into a sweatshop or preferably
PRISION..
jcila on January 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Yup. Govt run schools suck & they are for us poor folks.
Private schools you can shop around for with your child’s needs in mind-only for rich folks.
If the govt is going to stay in the ED business: Vouchers please.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Almost everything you list has to do with technological advancement and not economics. Microwaves didn’t even exist in 30′s and most of everything else on you list was in it’s infancy as far as acceptance is concerned. The rest can be explained with advancements in manufacturing techniques. Wage data adjusted for inflation might work better.
I don’t have it tough. I have savings and the means to live comfortable, but I know those who don’t.
Middle class wages haven’t shrunk and the only reason to account for shrinkage in the middle class is because of upward mobility?
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM
Do you really believe that? By your logic, you want a company to reduce it’s margin, and consequently it’s free cash flow yet invest more capital to build plants.
Where’s the money going to come from? You could cut executive salaries by 75% and it won’t pay for it.
BacaDog on January 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM
While I believe our Nation’s poor have it way better than our ancestors, you have a valid point here.
I’m worse off than my ancestors (at least the ones within the past 200 yrs or so) bcs the govt has taxed me to the point where I cannot save any $$ bcs just when I do, I have another tax to pay for.
50 yrs ago my husband’s grandfather could make a living in ag through his hard work & innovation.
You can’t do that now unless your daddy willed you the ranch debt free.
It doesn’t matter how hard we work, the govt has always done something to depress the buriness we are in, through new rules or not enforcing rules already on the books (Stockyard & Packer’s Act etc), it is extremely difficult to get ahead in ag if your are a family producer without being a millionaire in the 1st place.
I wonder how many other areas in the business world this has happened to.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Those are great points and you can say the same for any government involvement in almost everything that should be in provate enterprise. While we are out getting lumber to build houses the greenies are getting the government to stop us taking the lumber. While we import oil we can’t drill for our own or mine coal because the greenies say it is harmful to the environnment. Now we export jobs… well at least we are exporting something I guess.
I think what is happening is the conservative (not republican) backlash is swelling up in the USA over all this environmental and world economy stuff. People see others like Patrick Kennedy support wind farms….but not in his town. People see the congress forcing automakers to produce small cars to meet their environmental standards while the congress critters drive huge SUV’s. Get the government out of our lives. That’s the solution. Let free enterprise work. Oversee or regulate it but let it work.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 1:03 PM
Remember that old anecdote about the communist and the capitalist walking down a highly fashionable street in a large American city? They stop in front of a large mansion, neatly tailored lawn, three new cars in the driveway. The communist bursts out with a condemnation “No man should be allowed to have that much wealth!” The capitalist retorts, “No, every man should be allowed to attain such wealth.”
It is all about incentive. Once we limit or derail incentive, we all lose. Seems the process has already begun. Take on a mortgage you know darn well you cannot afford, and you get a bailout. Obtain a reasonable mortgage, faithfully work to pay it off, and you see your tax dollars given to others who are suddenly victims. Be a failing business, dependent on federal subsidy, and you are rewarded. Be a successful business, and your profits are stripped from you almost before you earn them.
What does that do to the concept of incentive?
coldwarrior on January 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM
We have to start playing to win against our competitors. We have to force them play fair, or they won’t, but that doesn’t mean we have to abandon free trade. We just have to start taking the competition seriously and act in our best interests.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM
Heard this morning on local ND news radio-there have been major plans to start building a coal gasification plant near Dickinson ND (South Heart) & all the permits, permission, etc has happened. Now they are suspending things until the Obama admin. basically gives them the go ahead. They are scared to go ahead bcs they think the new admin is going to change the rules on them.
Our Sen. Dorgan pined he’d like to see it built, but that he understands they must put the plans on hold in order to wait for the ‘green’ light from The One.
Totally in agreement. I think, however, I’ll be waiting for pigs to fly.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
You will have to quantify that.
If you mean money, as I stated the Gov. takes care of that stat.
But if you mean, quality of education, and or quality of life like safety, or single parent families, divorces, juvenile delinquencies, social issues that arise from gov. programs that are perpetuated on the “poor”, then the “poor” have grown greatly in rank…the number of welfare recipients is vastly greater then your examples dictate.
There is more to being “poor” in America then just not having a house or a TV, or auto…
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM
If I buy one soccer ball while vacationing in Bangladesh for 75c, then sell it PHX for $10, & I spend my profit in PHX, how is that hurting our economy?
How would it hurt our economy if I buy thousands there to sell here?
jgapinoy on January 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Not saying don’t do it-but that redistributes the need for industry to be able to go somewhere else (like Bangladesh).
No country can survive as a consumer nation like this. If we give up being able to make our own stuff, we are cutting our own throats by letting someone else have power over the necessities we need (but not soccer balls, of course).
BTW-are you nuts? I would personally be afraid to vacation in Bangladesh!
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM
You think then that every person and every country is equally good at everything?
If not, then comparative advantage exists.
As to our trade agreements, they would be better if the US just dropped all trade restrictions.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 1:50 PM
1) The two cannot be seperated.
2) The technological advances are why we are more productive and hence can afford all of the new toys.
Please try to keep up with econ 101.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM
It’s too simplified a scenario. You are focusing on yourself and not the whole trade policy with India. Does India truly allow free trade, or do they place a value added tax on all imports and exports, and then refund that VAT to their exporters? What is India’s corporate tax rate vs. ours? Is India pegging their currency to ours to maintain cheap exports instead of allowing their currency to rise as it would naturally as their economy advanced?
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 1:53 PM
We are not a consumer nation.
You guys have some kind of fixation that unless something is made in a factory, it doesn’t count.
MarkTheGreat on January 23, 2009 at 1:56 PM
By your theory a single mother on welfare is far richer than the King of England 1776 because she has access to technology. You having any luck googling up that comparison of wages between now and the 1930′s adjusted for inflation, or do you still want to talk about microwaves and other technologies that were unavailable then.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 2:01 PM
You shouldn’t be worrying about our trade restrictions, but instead start worrying about our competitors trade restrictions, and other assorted dirty tricks. The ones we willingly accept.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 2:06 PM
A ‘factory’ doesn’t have to be one in the traditional sense.
Bottom line- The USA ‘consumes’ way more from other nations than it ever has (lately).
Depending solely upon other nations for our necessities-like technology, food, energy needs, etc. is stupid.
We need to have healthy infrastructures for these thing in place in our country so that if a country supplying us with a necessity goes tits up, we don’t, like, starve, or something.
The world of finance, insurance, accounting, etc. has its merits-but in the END, when you get down to the nitty gritty, if you don’t have any food bcs you ran the people out of town who made it for you bcs you wanted to get it real cheap from somewhere else, & the people who sold it to you now hate your guts & won’t sell it to you anymore,you will essentially DIE.
All your finance & accounting strategies will not save you from these basic necessities.
Survival is still basic.
If you live in NY & the $hit hits the fan-no govt, chaos, etc happens, the majority will die.
That is what I am talking about. Our nation needs to stop kicking the basic providers of your necessities that are still here in the a$$.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 2:07 PM
What isn’t made in a factory? The appliance fairy seems to have passed me by this year.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 2:10 PM
You make good points. In addition technology has limitations.
How well does the technology work when the power is disconnected for example.
Technology…is a tool to be used to assist and improve peoples work. It’s not intended to replace skills and jobs that people do. Technology is nothing without people but people will survive fine without technology.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 2:11 PM
Conversely, you must agree that we have become a nation of consumers.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Amen!
So true.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM
I am out here in the stix of ND-but I have lived all over the US in big cities like San Antonio, Seattle, NY, LA, etc.
Proponents of free trade are usually people who don’t actually ‘make’ anything. They take for granted, or don’t understand, where their necessities come from. Or perhaps they forget.
I am one of the few & vanishing family ag people out there making stuff for YOU all to eat. Factory farming is becoming the norm. They definitely don’t care like I do & the govt makes it easier for them to burn & pillage their way through the ag process than it does me.
Free trade policies & unfair advantages are putting folks like me out of business.
I’m not stupid enough to believe in a pure Jefferson farm utopia of all family farms.
But chew on this all-
ever eat a factory steak vs a home raised beef steak?
You will never forget the difference. I also know my meat is not contaminated with Ecoli etc.
I know the condition & safety of every animal on my place.
I don’t want to put a wedge between city & country folk here, but I think it’s there for many, none the less.
I did not grow up ‘country’, but I have never been as arrogant as lots of ‘city folk’ are to ‘country folk’.
The ignorance that many city dwellers have of ‘country life’ is astounding.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Sure enough. At least I can live without amenities. I hope you can, too,
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Better read what I wrote again, you are putting words in my mouth…I said to learn about trade agreements before lecturing people on comparative advantage.
And your lack of knowledge shows with this:
Our trade agreements could be improved (dropping them is naive), but it is the other countries irresponsibility and ignoring the “rules” that are causing the greatest problem.
That is why I stated (and you are a good example) that most people do not even know the effect on China tying their currency to ours.
You proved my point, do a little more research and study before bringing up “comparative advantage”.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Yes I can live without enemies to. The more I live without them the better I like it. Did I misunderstand your reference to the comment I made to markthegreat?
lets see….
You produce food. I consume food. Ergo I am a consumer. I produce shoes. You buy shoes. Ergo you are a consumer also.
Getting the food to me and the shoes to you..that is called trade. If we pay money to each other it is fair trade. If I pay you money but you don’t pay me that is called NAFTA. See the difference?
Amenities are what you buy with the money I paid for the food. I can’t buy any because you didn’t pay me. The democrats call the shoes I gave you foreign aid becasue I got nothing for it.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Not the way our agreements are enforced…it is more complicated then that when dealing internationally.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Really?
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Hee hee! I like it!
Perhaps I misunderstood something-but now I don’t know what. So oh well.
I quite understand. I am advocating for people who actually ‘make’ things, not things like ‘wealth’ or ‘jobs’ (even those are still important).
The basic necessities-your clean water, your food, your clothes (although I can make the fibers myself to turn into cloth) etc is what our country still needs to know how to produce.
Medicines-let’s not get so dependent upon other countries for this stuff (but we are!).
This is what I rant about. We are becoming way too global in our trade. Global trade has advantages, but we are putting all of our eggs in one basket.
Soon we will lose the ability to look after ourselves bcs the only jobs left here will be in things like ‘finance’ & ‘customer service’ etc…
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM
MarkTheGreat,
I enjoy debating an issue, but your condescension is getting me snippy, so I will apologize for that and call it a day.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Yes and therin lies the danger in the global economy. Our enemies will have is where they want us. If you think oil is expensive wait until we don’t produce enough food for our population or we can’t get medicines because china is keeping it for themselves.
We have to put oursleve in their place. Who cares about the USA needing food when their people need it same for medicine or oil or any necessity. You won’t be able to give away gold when the food runs out.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 2:47 PM
?
You know, that kind of paranoia is all kinds of problems. What happens if all your worst nightmares come true? Things get expensive, and then people get to work. You are just going to drive yourself into the ground if you refuse to take even a calculated risk.
Count to 10 on January 23, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Have you been over to http://www.manlyrash.com/blog/ ?
Count to 10 on January 23, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Hey stupid, I was responding to your misuse of “fair trade”.
Try reading and comprehending the whole post, rather then just taking one part and being an *sshole.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 3:13 PM
I don’t think kanda is being paranoid & neither am I.
Is a person paranoid bcs they make sure they have a stock of food on hand for a year or more?
Nobody’s talking about being afraid to take risks, but I am sure talking about getting yourself out on a limb with no way to get back.
This is not paranoia. It’s watching out to make sure your a$$ doesn’t get caught in a trap it can’t extract itself out of.
BTW-people may get to work if things get expensive, but they can die, too.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 3:54 PM
I believe it is more complicated than most believe.
First I don’t believe that our trade agreements are even being enforced correctly.If they were, there would be a lot of stuff from places like China that wouldn’t be sold here.
Second I believe in some of our agreements we’ve sold ourselves downriver.
Thirdly, I believe other countries are messing artificially with their currency, which screws up everything.
As far as enforcement of agreements goes, I know there are some products that have to be inspected over there at the source before they come over here & they are NOT.
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Four excellent posts…but the third is more then “screws” up everything.
That is the corner post of them undercutting us, and us not enforcing the agreements.
The basis for them to be able to “take” a market is the illegal use of tying their currency to ours.
And it effects the whole world, not just us. South America has been terribly hurt by these actions.
If you enforced that one international rule, and made sure that their products undergo the same stringent requirements and standards that ours do (other words force their gov. to be as intrusive as ours), then you would see pricing parity.
Just those two, and the import/export would reverse…but hard to change when Pelosi, Feinstein’s husbands depend on international trade.
right2bright on January 23, 2009 at 4:23 PM
I guess a lot of people here don’t watch the little vignettes during the Olympics. Until the recession, we were buying so much stuff from China that the wages HAD to start climbing as workers became scarce (relatively). There was at least two short stories during the Olympics about how the growth in production there due to American consumption was putting capitalist pressure on the government and the system.
Robust trade can take time to level things out, but the money it infuses into economies eventually does the trick.
Being protectionist will just create international instability and reduce the buying power of Americans.
PastorJon on January 23, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I REALLY would like to see our govt stop imposing stupid rules upon businesses.
But some of them, at least in the ag sector, are made for safety & public health concerns. Like not being able to feed ruminant animals feed made up of other ground up ruminant animals (this is how cows get BSE (AKA Mad Cow Disease)).
Drugs is another issue-there are certain drugs & pesticides that we cannot use but Canada can. We have found these things to be harmful. But they DO boost production & that is why Canada uses stuff like that so they then have a cheaper produced product.
So I am all for getting the govt out of my business, like when they want to force me to register all of my animals into a huge govt database by wearing a govt approved eartag (that will fall off anyway) on the premise of tracking disease etc (Hint:that’s what brands are for. They’re a permanent record of where an animal came from).
But they are the problem, even when they’re tying to be a solution.
Argg!
Thanks for the debate everyone! Goin’ home to my sub-zero weather!
Badger40 on January 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Right on. All the talk about world trade is making this too complex. Forget India and all the rest. The only real player now is China. They are allowed to peg the yuan to our dollar, against agreements, for two main reasons. First, they hold the bulk of our debt. If we do things to disrupt the balance of trade with them during this down economy (much like Geithner’s statement in his confirmation hearing) and they stop buying USD and start buying another currency or gold, then you will be looking at hyperinflation here and in Europe followed by a deep depression. Secondly, the communist government in China sees itself at somewhat of a tipping point now between its communist principles and growing capitalism. They need for their economy to be robust for fear of a major uprising from dissatisfied citizens. I don’t think the world wants to have to deal with an unstable nuclear China during these times.
genso on January 23, 2009 at 6:25 PM
That is the way it’s suppose to work, and that is why I support free trade, but right2bright has been telling you what China is doing behind the scenes to ensure their currency will never rise in relation to ours. This practice keeps their exports priced low in relation to goods that could be produced here, and that isn’t free trade.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 6:40 PM
The real problem now is the debt. How do we now pursue our best interests in trade when the nations that hold that debt like China can do great damage by refusing to lend or even dumping the dollars they currently have? We are standing in a corner with a paintbrush in our hands, but Washington refuses to see the sea of fresh red paint on the floor.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 6:46 PM
OK Here is your whole post
To Which I said
and you replied
Well I’m not stupid nor and I am as you put it an *sshole. Perhaps you used those terms to describe yourself.
My Question still stands
Really?
I am duly impressed by your mastery of the english language. I can tell that you choose you words most unwisely. based on your reply you don’t appear to have the intelligence nor the information to answer my question I can see why you resort to name calling and such. You obviously think you could put out nonsense and no one will ask you how it really worked. When I first read your response I mistakenly read your handle as none2bright based on the content. Oh well that about sums it up.
kanda on January 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM
We don’t “give up making our own stuff”. We export food & stuff all over the world.
BTW, I’ve had lots of fun in my vacations in the Philippines, so I can’t imagine Bangladesh being that bad.
jgapinoy on January 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Bangladesh is not a part of India.
jgapinoy on January 23, 2009 at 8:55 PM
jgapinoy on January 23, 2009 at 8:54 PM –
Been to both, working, not on vacation, thus exposed to a totally different demographic…they are not at all similar.
Bangladesh is one of the TFN’s of the Third World. The Philippines is a much more modern state by and large, though with a large segment of the rural area somewhat underdeveloped.
Philippines: GDP: $144.1 Billion (2007) Per capita income $3300.00. Population 96,061,680.
Bangladesh: $83.04 billion (2008) Per capita income $250.00. Population 153,546,896.
The math does not look pretty.
coldwarrior on January 23, 2009 at 9:05 PM
You’re right.
DFCtomm on January 23, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Kind of reminds me of how the “do-gooders” got DDT banned to help the downtrodden and probably killed millions of them in the process.
MB4 on January 23, 2009 at 9:46 PM
Heh….too funny.
genso on January 23, 2009 at 10:11 PM
Dark-Star on January 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM
For once, a move in the right direction.
Now get it done so that the flow of junk stops.
sethstorm on January 24, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Then perhaps you should study about removing the adversity from the union-management conflict.
That’s what is killing them.
sethstorm on January 24, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Hopefully they’ll ignore him and help this nation.
We are not obligated to assist Third World nations (China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia and the like) if they are destroying our own at the cost of being unable to assist our own.
sethstorm on January 24, 2009 at 4:45 PM
Economics and trade are a constantly moving balancing act if allowed to work to the advantage of producer and consumer. Muck up the works at any point along the way and the advantage for producer and consumer is lost.
coldwarrior on January 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
You have it right. If trade provides what we want at the price we want to pay, what right do we have to tell those producing the product how to produce it, especially when it is produced in a foreign country?
If we want to produce a quality $4.00 T shirt in the U.S. we can. But considerable concessions to the means of production (land, labor, capital and entrepreneurship)will need to be made.
These concessions will consist of taking the impact/influences of government out of each of the elements.
For example, Land – level of taxation etc. on the land where production takes place.
Labor – obviously the duplicity of government safety/health issues imposed and the unions mandate of the same as well as dictating the wages.
Capital – loans and the cost of money is overly regulated and taxation on every dollar used to produce the product, sell the product, and of the earnings of those performing the labor.
Entrepreneurship – Let private industry leadership lead. Remove government from the first three elements and the leader will be able to work with their customers and employee’s to solve many of problems that stand in the means of providing U.S. what we need and want.
MSGTAS on January 26, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Amazing that this is actually going to be news for many of the NYT’s readers
Dudley Smith on January 26, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2