China posts Q1 trade deficit

[editec]

easy with all those isms.... they are very loaded notions.

Yes, they are.

Sadly, they are mostly loaded up with nonsense by people who don't truly understand what they mean.

[editec]

Where do you draw the boundaries? The United States of America were 13 nations linked together by a common defense need against the British crown. They had different monetary systems and enacted trade barriers against one another just like what nations have always done. One of the very first act of the US Congress was to settle interstate trade dispute. There are no trade barriers between the states today because of that. Of course there are "soft" barriers but that only hurts the consumers and benefit the special interests.

Europe is trying to do what we did 200 years ago, to unite the various nations of Europe via a common currency and removal of trade barriers within the bloc.

We have virtually unlimited free trade with Canada. That has benefitted both nations.

Do we?

If it were only that simple see:

A Guide for Canadian Businesses -- U.S. Commercial Service Canada

Regardless of the origin of the goods you are importing, you will need to pay the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in those provinces that still have GST and the Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) in those provinces that have newly adopted the HST. Additional information about the GST and HST is available by calling 1-800-959-5525, or to order forms and/or publications, call 1-800-959-2221.

Are there any imports that are prohibited?

The majority of U.S. products shipped to Canada enter the market free from any import restrictions. However, under the provisions of the Canadian Customs Tariff regulations, certain commodities, such as reprints of Canadian copyrighted work, and some game birds, cannot be imported. Other goods that are controlled, regulated, or prohibited under legislation fall within the jurisdiction of other government departments. Examples of regulated goods include: certain food products; clothing; drug and medical devices; hazardous products; some offensive weapons and firearms; and endangered species.

http://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/security-secu...hib-eng.html14

Other items are regulated under the Export and Import Permits Act and require an import permit or certificate to be eligible for importation into Canada. The Act lists various agricultural products, a number of clothing and textile items, and certain steel products. Inquiries regarding the issuance of import permits or certificates and quota allocations should be directed to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Export and Import Permits Control Bureau15.

[gunnut]

The majority of U.S. products shipped to Canada enter the market free from any import restrictions.

There are always exceptions. For example you can't just walk across the border with your guns. Guns are much more heavily regulated in Canada.

We still have trade restrictions amongst the states too. Here's a good example in California. All milk sold in California has to be fortified with Vitamin D. Other states are free to sell their dairy in CA as long as it's fortified as specified under this law. This adds a cost to doing business for dairy farmers outside of California. Thereby it protects CA dairy farmers.

This is the "soft restriction" I mentioned in my earlier post. It is foolish and harms the consumers in California.

[RollingWave]

Market reform using "greed is good" model instead of "we know best" model. One billion people, each serving his own self interest, will build wealth much faster than to have them directly under government control.

The problem is that history have shown that aside from Europe and Americas, which sort of evolved into the industrialized free market mode, the rest of the world did not have this luxury, if we look at states that "caught on" in the last century (namely the East Asian states and a few others). almost all of them saw a rather heavy government hand in the process.

Market reform can promote free market economy yes, but it doesn't appear to be able to transform a agricultural society into an industrial one (at least within an acceptable timeframe.) . The problem of course is that government pushes for industrialization is difficult to seperate from it's market reforms for obvious reasons. But this isn't really a chicken and egg thing, you can't have a modern economy without a solid degree of industrialization, and for most non-European societies expecting the civilian sector to develope a serious industrial base (espeically more speicalized / heavy industrial stuff) on themself is rather optimistic.

Reforms to a modern soicety / economy are tied into one, you can not just have one part happen and expect everything else to fall into place, for example enforcing the rule of law is a big problem, sufficent infrastructure is a big problem, sufficent industrial base etc, the messed up countries of today and yesterday are not simply an European / American country without proper free market reforms, they typically lack so much much more things that those countries take for granted, and typically it almost always require a strong government to push through enough reforms to shift them onto a new track (see Nigeria as an example of only partially reformed state thats pretty seriously ****ed up)

They are very nationalistic. At the same time they have problems. China's economy is an export economy. Someone has to buy the stuff they make. Absent that, they would have a much slower growth rate. They must get their own consumption up a bit to consume the products they make. Internal trade is as important as external trade.

Yes, but what comes first? China's growth model is not unlike that of Japan/ Taiwan / Korea / Hong Kong if you dial the clock back for 30-50 years depending on the state. They must at least get their average income up to a certain degree before serious consumption market can realistically happen, which is happening already anyway. Those other east Asian states are why you can be hopeful the PRC will eventually push through alright, though their scale is obviously more worrisome.

Free trade is good. The free trade among the 50 states is much better than the 50 states pursue their own growth at the expense of the other 49 states. I see you are in Maine. Do you want Maine to try to grow your own oranges instead of importing them from Florida? Do you want an import duty on imported oranges to protect the huge cost of growing your own oranges?

Yeah, but included in these are things that are much less likely to happen in the case of international trade, such as freedom of labor.. a major major key point. The obvious problem is that poor countries will see mass population exodus (we're seeing that in Eastern Europe BTW) . which will in the longer run "even the playing field " (but that could also very likely mean that it drives down the better off market's a bit as well). This isn't even going too well when it's amongst Europeans themselfs, throw in Arab / Muslims and good luck with that.

Suffice to say that the free market model have some pretty serious limitations unless we abolish national borders altogether. something that isn't likely to happen in our lifetime at least.

[antimony]

The problem is that history have shown that aside from Europe and Americas, which sort of evolved into the industrialized free market mode, the rest of the world did not have this luxury, if we look at states that "caught on" in the last century (namely the East Asian states and a few others). almost all of them saw a rather heavy government hand in the process.

Market reform can promote free market economy yes, but it doesn't appear to be able to transform a agricultural society into an industrial one (at least within an acceptable timeframe.) . The problem of course is that government pushes for industrialization is difficult to seperate from it's market reforms for obvious reasons. But this isn't really a chicken and egg thing, you can't have a modern economy without a solid degree of industrialization, and for most non-European societies expecting the civilian sector to develope a serious industrial base (espeically more speicalized / heavy industrial stuff) on themself is rather optimistic.

Not necessarily...

Whatever growth India has been having for the past 2 decades has been in spite of the GOI and state governments, not because of them. For a long time the government(s) tried to control economic activity through central plans and a strict licensing regime; production quotas were set up and industries were fined if they went beyond the quotas, apart from a myriad set of anti-industry regulations (many still prevalent). Computers, in many cases, were actively denied entry.

Then in the early 1990's Dr. Singh (the current PM) in his tenure as the Finance Minister decided to get out of the way of people; India and Indians were allowed to progress on their own pace and the result is that we are at least better than where we were then.

[DOR]

We still have trade restrictions amongst the states too. Here's a good example in California. All milk sold in California has to be fortified with Vitamin D. Other states are free to sell their dairy in CA as long as it's fortified as specified under this law. This adds a cost to doing business for dairy farmers outside of California. Thereby it protects CA dairy farmers.

I'd agree with you, except that the rule applies across the board, to California producers as well as those from Alaska or Argentina. In other words, is it non-distorting, and therefore WTO compliant.

By the way, last year a California trade official told me Hong Kong was one of the fastest growing new markets for fresh California milk.

[DOR]

Yeah, but included in these are things that are much less likely to happen in the case of international trade, such as freedom of labor.. a major major key point. The obvious problem is that poor countries will see mass population exodus (we're seeing that in Eastern Europe BTW) . which will in the longer run "even the playing field " (but that could also very likely mean that it drives down the better off market's a bit as well). This isn't even going too well when it's amongst Europeans themselfs, throw in Arab / Muslims and good luck with that.

Suffice to say that the free market model have some pretty serious limitations unless we abolish national borders altogether. something that isn't likely to happen in our lifetime at least.

I can't agree with that.

First, it is the poorly run states that are seeing their populations flee; here in East Asia, we are attracting very high quality migrants all the time (NY-Lon bankers are getting down right cheap).

More important, there are virtually no examples -- except oilers -- of closed economies with high standards of living. On the flip side, all of the wealthy economies -- except oilers -- are open to trade and investment, and in some cases, people movements.

Globalization has done more to reduce global poverty than any factor in human history. And, I've seen it first hand over the past 30+ years.

[gunnut]

I'd agree with you, except that the rule applies across the board, to California producers as well as those from Alaska or Argentina. In other words, is it non-distorting, and therefore WTO compliant.

By the way, last year a California trade official told me Hong Kong was one of the fastest growing new markets for fresh California milk.

This still harms the consumers. Instead of giving them a choice of regular milk at a lower price and a fortified milk at a higher price, consumers are forced to use a higher priced product with no disernable benefit.

That's like requiring all products sold in the US to be produced in factories that meet US labor laws. It's not a hard barrier, but it benefits local producers at the cost of consumers. You won't pay $7.25/hr in China to produce low end consumer products, with a 50% bonus overtime pay after 40-hour work week and health care benefit that meet Obamacare rules. If you do, you are welcome to sell your ware in the US.

You cannot tell me that's not a trade restriction at the cost of consumers.

[RollingWave]

Not necessarily...

Whatever growth India has been having for the past 2 decades has been in spite of the GOI and state governments, not because of them. For a long time the government(s) tried to control economic activity through central plans and a strict licensing regime; production quotas were set up and industries were fined if they went beyond the quotas, apart from a myriad set of anti-industry regulations (many still prevalent). Computers, in many cases, were actively denied entry.

Then in the early 1990's Dr. Singh (the current PM) in his tenure as the Finance Minister decided to get out of the way of people; India and Indians were allowed to progress on their own pace and the result is that we are at least better than where we were then.

Yes, and India isn't that better off than China as a whole, both have very positive developments but when taken into the whole picture is still relatively lagging to the advanced countries of the world.

China and India are both examples of this, that becomming a modern country requires a wide variety of combination that must all fall into place for things to happen. during a similar (or even shorter) timespan Taiwan and Korea both became considerablly more advanced as a whole then India, if we take into account things like poverty rates and literacy rates and average income and relatively even distribution of infrastructure and resources etc... sure it's easier to do when the country is smaller, but lets not kid ourself that the 130ish GDP per capita (by either method) of India (or China, which is actually doing significantly better in this method) is somehow a totally modernized country.

I can't agree with that.

First, it is the poorly run states that are seeing their populations flee; here in East Asia, we are attracting very high quality migrants all the time (NY-Lon bankers are getting down right cheap).

More important, there are virtually no examples -- except oilers -- of closed economies with high standards of living. On the flip side, all of the wealthy economies -- except oilers -- are open to trade and investment, and in some cases, people movements.

Globalization has done more to reduce global poverty than any factor in human history. And, I've seen it first hand over the past 30+ years.

But your reversing what came first . almost all those states were high living standard states BEFORE globalization. They did not suddenly jump ahead of everyone else BECAUSE of globalization.

If anything, there is some merits to the argument (though not completely) that globalization had simply made the well off states even more well off while the not so well off states even worse.

The matter I'm simply pointing to is that Rome was not built in a day, most of the countries that are relatively behind are due to a complex combination of lacks, not simply the lack of a free market (which they may or may not lack now) . As you pointed out yourself, a free market with a incompetent government is still generally useless (again, see Nigeria, a country with a free market AND oil and is still somehow messed up).

At the same time, the countries that are well off are ALSO due to a complex combination of merits, free market is just one of them (and a relatively new phenomnon amongst their merits too.), you can not just say that it is something of a fix all solution, it's not, if the other supporting factors do not exist it may even do more harm then good.

[Officer of Engineers]

This still harms the consumers. Instead of giving them a choice of regular milk at a lower price and a fortified milk at a higher price, consumers are forced to use a higher priced product with no disernable benefit.

I have a case for you. Health Canada was under pressure to allow BFT into Canada to allow American dairy products to compete with Canadian. Health Canada relented and allowed BFT in. None of the Dairy Farmers in Canada took up the chemical and thus, in Canada, our dairy products remain 80% higher than equivalent American products. However, according to NAFTA, nothing is stopping a Canadian going across the border to pick up cheap dairy products ... and many do.

However, most Canadians do not trust American dairy products and despite their lower price, never allowed Health Canada to lower their standards.

[gunnut]

I have a case for you. Health Canada was under pressure to allow BFT into Canada to allow American dairy products to compete with Canadian. Health Canada relented and allowed BFT in. None of the Dairy Farmers in Canada took up the chemical and thus, in Canada, our dairy products remain 80% higher than equivalent American products. However, according to NAFTA, nothing is stopping a Canadian going across the border to pick up cheap dairy products ... and many do.

However, most Canadians do not trust American dairy products and despite their lower price, never allowed Health Canada to lower their standards.

There we go. Allow the consumers to make that decision for themselves instead of the government or special interest group to make it for them. Those who think the product is worth the extra money will spend it. Others who think their money is needed elsewhere would have a choice of a cheaper product.

[antimony]

Yes, and India isn't that better off than China as a whole, both have very positive developments but when taken into the whole picture is still relatively lagging to the advanced countries of the world.

The point that I was trying to put forth is that India was in a very poor state BEFORE removal of government regulations, now it is much better even though it is still lagging behind industrialized nations.

But your reversing what came first . almost all those states were high living standard states BEFORE globalization. They did not suddenly jump ahead of everyone else BECAUSE of globalization.

If anything, there is some merits to the argument (though not completely) that globalization had simply made the well off states even more well off while the not so well off states even worse.

That's not true. India would have been in a much worse place without globalization and freeing of regulations. The country was about to sell of gold to meet export commitments before liberalisation and look where the country is now. Globalisation has transferred a huge amount of capital from industrilized nations to places like India, China, South East Asia, S. Korea and other places, both for manufacturing and services.

The matter I'm simply pointing to is that Rome was not built in a day, most of the countries that are relatively behind are due to a complex combination of lacks, not simply the lack of a free market (which they may or may not lack now) . As you pointed out yourself, a free market with a incompetent government is still generally useless (again, see Nigeria, a country with a free market AND oil and is still somehow messed up).

How is Nigeria a free market? Any "free" economy without political freedoms is not a free market economy, its an example of crony capitalism.

[xinhui]

Any "free" economy without political freedoms is not a free market economy, its an example of crony capitalism.

if there is ever a loaded statement, this is it.

All East Asia nations has grown their economy under heavy government hands, ROK, ROC, Japan, HongKong, Singapore, to name a few. hack, Germany under Bismarck was not what I would call a free society. I think you are confused the concept of political freedom with that of state capitalism. If you want to proclaim that the Indian system is the best, especially against those Chinese. You can go ahead and say it. no need to go around and around.

[DOR]

This still harms the consumers. Instead of giving them a choice of regular milk at a lower price and a fortified milk at a higher price, consumers are forced to use a higher priced product with no disernable benefit.

That's like requiring all products sold in the US to be produced in factories that meet US labor laws. It's not a hard barrier, but it benefits local producers at the cost of consumers. You won't pay $7.25/hr in China to produce low end consumer products, with a 50% bonus overtime pay after 40-hour work week and health care benefit that meet Obamacare rules. If you do, you are welcome to sell your ware in the US.

You cannot tell me that's not a trade restriction at the cost of consumers.

gunnut,

Since your knowledge of the health benefits of vitamin D fortified milk is clearly superior to my own, and to that of the people who enacted this law, I’ll simply let that pass.

I will agree with you that national labor laws impose a cost on consumers. This was a deliberate choice, as a means of benefiting workers. Long history there, as I’m sure you know.

I’m not sure about why you bring China into it, but as I state above, California is finding a ready market for milk in Hong Kong and China. Trust me on this one, I live here and I discussed it with US business and trade officials visiting here just last year.

And, as I’ve consistently said, raising the price consumers pay through trade barriers is inherently anti-poor.

[antimony]

if there is ever a loaded statement, this is it.

All East Asia nations has grown their economy under heavy government hands, ROK, ROC, Japan, HongKong, Singapore, to name a few. hack, Germany under Bismarck was not what I would call a free society. I think you are confused the concept of political freedom with that of state capitalism. If you want to proclaim that the Indian system is the best, especially against those Chinese. You can go ahead and say it. no need to go around and around.

I am surprised at how wrongly you read this. This has nothing to do with Indian system being better than the Chinese system or whatever (which is not I said).

All I am saying is that government intervention is not a necessarily a good thing and globalization is not necessarily a bad thing.

The Indian example was quoted to show that once government gets out the way of the people they can be productive.

I am not even sure how China got into this, I believe Rolling wave somehow brought China in.

And that "loaded statement" that you talk about - are you saying that capitalism without political freedoms and rule of law is "free market"?