We should be ashamed. For years the United States in general and the Republican Party in particular has proclaimed the value of the free market to all who would listen. We induced countries to open their markets with promises of aid from and inclusion in international organizations such as the IMF and WTO. Uncompetitive domestic industries should be exposed to market forces, we said, and allowed to either adapt or fail without the interference of government. Rousing, inspirational words, but now the world sees that they sprang from the lips of hypocrites.
The long saga of anti-competitive arrangements in the international textile market was supposed to have finally come to an end on January 1, 2005. Apparently the experience of just a few months of actual market based competition has been enough to make this Administration rethink its commitment to the free market. The reason for this appalling abandonment of free market principles is that the free market is working. China is a superior producer of textiles in the world market; its textile industry has proven itself to be capable of offering comparable quality at a lower price. As Chinese textile manufacturers, for once largely unencumbered by market distortions, have grabbed market share, US textile manufacturers have screamed at the unfairness of it all; apparently invoking the theory that a convincing argument need not be factually accurate as long as it is made loudly.
Chinese officials are right to call us hypocrites. Protectionism is the enemy of efficient markets, and efficient markets will lead to more prosperity than a policy of narrow-minded catering to uncompetitive industries ever will.
Replies: 6 Comments
Posted by:
Aaron
On Monday, April 18th
I'm sorry Scooter, but your constant need to change the subject means that you aren't really comfortable taking on whatever I'm talking about head on.
Accusing me of hating America is good fun and all, but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying. The fact that I'm suggesting that America makes mistakes means that I care that they are being made. And I don't want them to be made. But unfortunately, the people in power are like you: When dissent is voiced, they just hear somebody rooting for the other side.
The indignation would be more convincing if you were here and could hear my voice.
The truth is, it is entirely possible that by the time I'm too old to type (here's to hoping I get there), China will be the superpower, bossing everyone else around and using their leverage to invade Taiwan and bomb Japan (or whatever)... and America will be sitting by the sidelines, whining about it but with no real power to stop it. To use something that you Fox News watchers can understand, they'll be like us, and we'll be like France.
This can be stopped and I would prefer that it be stopped.
Posted by:
scooter
On Sunday, April 17th
Come now, Aaron - the indignation is not convincing. If you think it's much of a stretch, then I feel sorry for you. If you think the anti-war protests aren't rooting for failure, your eyes are closed. Just one recent example.
Posted by:
Aaron
On Saturday, April 16th
Don't try to read my mind, Scooter. I'm not rooting for this. How dare you. Just, how dare you.
The fact that most conservatives refuse to even think about this possibility, though, is why it could happen.
And no, liberals do not root for the demise of America. How dare you.
Posted by:
scooter
On Saturday, April 16th
Aaron - it's hard to read this: "an interesting world it will be when China is in charge and America is hobbling behind"
without concluding you're rooting for this.
Of course you won't admit it but I know you're a liberal and one of the things I've noticed about liberals is that they like to snicker at the United States. Thoughts?
Posted by:
Aaron
On Saturday, April 16th
Just a tangential note, in 100 years China will probably not have the same advantages it does now in manufacturing. If China is head towards a free market system, its economy will no doubt be quite stimulated... eventually, companies will be competing for workers and will be forced to pay them more than they are now. Then there will be labor unions, working conditions standards...
Granted, like I said, that will be in 100 years... so they'll have a lot of time to get richer than us. But still... what an interesting world it will be when China is in charge and America is hobbling behind, our innovation in fields that we could win in being outsourced to countries willing to fund research with government money.
Though the world economic landscape will also be dramatically different in 100 years because there may not be much more oil left, if any. Just food for thought.
Posted by:
Nathan_Smith@ksg03.harvard.edu">Nathan Smith
On Thursday, April 14th
Great post, and thanks for drawing attention to this. When you look at a comment like this:
“This decision is the first step in a process to determine whether the U.S. market for these products is being disrupted and whether China is playing a role in that disruption,” said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez.
You just want to tear your hair out at the economic illiteracy that is on display. OF COURSE the market is being disrupted. Markets are disrupted all the time. That's capitalism. Hello, our economic system, the one that won the Cold War? If the government intervened every time a trading partner or a new technology disrupted the market, that's as much as to abolish capitalism and move towards a planned economy instead. Duh.
