hboGYT,
The Trumpet may think he’s focused on damaging China’s economy, and benefiting America’s, but that’s just a result of his deep ignorance.
= = = = =
tbm3fan,
Sorry if I gave the impression of putting words in your mouth; I was addressing the general protectionist arguments. “The underlying argument is …” wasn’t at all about what you said.
Interesting point on e-bay; I hadn’t thought of that.
= = = = =
Oracle,
Economic games the CCP plays: First, there isn’t a whole lot of politburo time spent on making sure the business environment for a bunch of foreign companies is as good as it can be. Seeing as how some 60% of exports are by foreign companies, any effort to ‘play economic games’ by sprucing up the business environment would have minimal benefits for China’s strategic interests.
It always amuses me to hear people complain about China taking unfair advantage in the trade sphere, and then in the same breath complain about how badly foreign companies are treated in China. Simple truth: you can't have it both ways when the majority of your exporters are foreign companies, and always have been. If one were trying to take an unfair advantage, mandating an average 13% p.a. rise in minimum wages over the past 15 years would be highly counterproductive (and, wages went up faster – amid minimal or negative inflation – in the PRD exporting hub).
China joined the world economy in 1978/79, and the WTO in 2001. That’s when they put down their marker and said, “We care about the rules.” In fact (and in great contrast to The Trumpet’s deep ignorance), China has used WTO dispute settlement procedures as much as anyone.
Personal experience: China's trade negotiators cared so much about WTO implementation that they signed the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Hong Kong in 2003. That document was mainly about training provincial and lower level officials on the importance of complying with an international treaty agreement. Part of the group I worked for carried out that training. These Chinese officials had never had to do that before, and by having a chance to ‘practice’ with Hong Kong, they could avoid accidentally embarrassing China in the WTO.
“China as a P5 country” . . . do you mean the ROC, which was one of the victors of WWII? Different China. The one we have today wasn’t allowed into discussions establishing the Bretton Woods economic system. Or the UN. Or the ILO. Or the IMF. Or the World Bank. Or GATT and the WTO.
Finally, don’t mistake my comments about China to mean that it is the holy cow or something. Totally misreading me.
And, if you think I don’t address ‘queries that are critical of China,’ just be sure you don’t really mean ‘fail to agree with you.’
The Trumpet may think he’s focused on damaging China’s economy, and benefiting America’s, but that’s just a result of his deep ignorance.
= = = = =
tbm3fan,
Sorry if I gave the impression of putting words in your mouth; I was addressing the general protectionist arguments. “The underlying argument is …” wasn’t at all about what you said.
Interesting point on e-bay; I hadn’t thought of that.
= = = = =
Oracle,
Economic games the CCP plays: First, there isn’t a whole lot of politburo time spent on making sure the business environment for a bunch of foreign companies is as good as it can be. Seeing as how some 60% of exports are by foreign companies, any effort to ‘play economic games’ by sprucing up the business environment would have minimal benefits for China’s strategic interests.
It always amuses me to hear people complain about China taking unfair advantage in the trade sphere, and then in the same breath complain about how badly foreign companies are treated in China. Simple truth: you can't have it both ways when the majority of your exporters are foreign companies, and always have been. If one were trying to take an unfair advantage, mandating an average 13% p.a. rise in minimum wages over the past 15 years would be highly counterproductive (and, wages went up faster – amid minimal or negative inflation – in the PRD exporting hub).
China joined the world economy in 1978/79, and the WTO in 2001. That’s when they put down their marker and said, “We care about the rules.” In fact (and in great contrast to The Trumpet’s deep ignorance), China has used WTO dispute settlement procedures as much as anyone.
Personal experience: China's trade negotiators cared so much about WTO implementation that they signed the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with Hong Kong in 2003. That document was mainly about training provincial and lower level officials on the importance of complying with an international treaty agreement. Part of the group I worked for carried out that training. These Chinese officials had never had to do that before, and by having a chance to ‘practice’ with Hong Kong, they could avoid accidentally embarrassing China in the WTO.
“China as a P5 country” . . . do you mean the ROC, which was one of the victors of WWII? Different China. The one we have today wasn’t allowed into discussions establishing the Bretton Woods economic system. Or the UN. Or the ILO. Or the IMF. Or the World Bank. Or GATT and the WTO.
Finally, don’t mistake my comments about China to mean that it is the holy cow or something. Totally misreading me.
And, if you think I don’t address ‘queries that are critical of China,’ just be sure you don’t really mean ‘fail to agree with you.’
Comment