« Plan for reality in Iraq | Main | Plan for reality in Iraq »

America’s protectionist politicians: always behind the learning curve


COLUMN: “Gradual rise of renminbi keeps market-watchers guessing,” by Steve Johnson, Financial Times, 23 March 2006, p. 24.

ARTICLE: “WTO urges US to resist protectionist sentiment,” by Doug Cameron and Frances Williams, Financial Times, 23 March 2006, p. 4.


ARTICLE: “China’s competitiveness hit by energy and labour costs,” by Tom Mitchell, Financial Times, 23 March 2006, p. 1.


Sens. Graham and Schumer take a fact-finding tour of China as part of their showy threat to jack up tariffs on all things Chinese. Schumer, whom I dislike immensely for more reasons than I can count, was bragging to the international press during this huge ass-kissing exercise that the Chinese certainly are taking his threats seriously. I like a charming political blackmailer myself.


This kind of pressure is--to put it mildly--rather crude. The Chinese have basically been slowly but surely raising the renminbi across 2006, tiny slices at a time. They are betting they’ll do just enough to stave off the protectionists on the Hill, who, apparently, would gladly torpedo China’s economic rise and the hundreds of millions that rise has lifted out of poverty. Of course, such an approach strikes some as strategic, because putting the Chinese government in a precarious position vis-à-vis their domestic economic performance will get us… a more repressive regime. But then that dovetails with the hawks, who can continue to use China to justify the wrong force structure for a war that will never be fought.


And you see the alliances that work right now in DC: those favoring disconnectivity in both economics and security, which is just what you’d expect from the leader of the Free World, yes.


But this is how you turn the 2000s into the 1930s: the foolish pursuit of zero-sum thinking (I maximize my gains by minimizing yours). To realize that so much of this thinking still permeates our Congress is really disturbing. We need more people with serious security experience and serious business experience on the Hill, rather than the clutch of life-long professional politicians we currently suffer.


Anyway, China moves toward making its currency more flexible and responsive to global market pressures for a lot of good reasons that improve the decision-making within its domestic economy, which is maturing as it accumulates wealth.


And it’s that maturation process that means the notion that China presents a neverending low-price pressure on all things global simply evaporates, as the world turns out to be a lot less flat than imagined. Energy costs and labor costs already mean that China is no longer the cheapest investment market in Asia, so the losses in trade experienced by the region’s smaller economies are already reversing, with Bangladesh, Cambodia and India gaining most.


Guess somebody better alert Sens. Graham and Schumer to prep their tariffs against the legions of poor in those states as well. I mean, gotta protect American workers from cheap labor. That way we’ll keep America productive and efficient and stuck right where we need to be on the production value chain. No sense leaping into any futures when the past is so comfortable.

Comments (5)

However tough American politicians may think they are, I doubt that they will do anything to make the Chinese leadership blink. The sad thing is that we are at a time in history when we need polititicans to reach out and create united fronts across nations that focus on the more substantive issues that are rearing their heads as a result of globalism. Global heating is one that comes to mind. But looking like you are concerned about jobs probably appeals to the voters back home. What we need now is strategy AND tactics to address the unintended consequences of globalism - but leadership is sadly lacking from both sides of politics in most western countries....

I get the sense the Chinese understand the U.S. political system enough to know Graham and Schumer are grandstanding. Yet, it still does piss them off and make us look bad. Fortunately, I still believe we are not going to go too far down the protectionist cliff.

"Schumer, whom I dislike immensely for more reasons than I can count"

And that's one of the reasons that I like this blog more every time I read it.

Chuck Schumer is one of the reasons why I no longer have a NY zip code on my address and one of the reasons why NY is likely to continue to bleed out population all across the state.

I love the observation that the PRC is essentially running out of cheap chinese labor. I've been saying this moment has been coming for a couple of years and have uniformly been met with disbelief. Anybody have a good reference for irrefutable evidence that we've turned the corner?

My college buddies and I have set up a message board system to discuss everything from economics to politics to movies to sports, etc. One topic that seems to resurface often is the big bad threat of China economically on this country. I can hardly contain myself when this topic comes up. It's unbelievable what lots and lots of college educated Americans believe, i.e. most of us will be working for the Chinese in 20 years, etc. Hysteria on this subject is rampant and disconcerting. I hope this isn't another one of those topics where public fear drives the public policy (i.e. Dubai ports deal).

Post a comment

Comments must adhere to the comment policy. All TypeKey comments will post immediately (but are still subject to moderation) All other comments must wait for moderation before they publish. Please also read How to write so Tom will post/reply.

'Development-in-a-Box' is a registered trademark of Enterra Solutions.

Buy Tom's books online









About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on March 24, 2006 4:44 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Plan for reality in Iraq.

The next post in this blog is Plan for reality in Iraq.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.