- Fred Schwacke wrote: (your comment)
Proposal to impose currency-related trade measures against China or other countries with undervalued currencies makes no sense for two major reasons:
- First, if China revalues its currency upward, it will dramatically increase the value of our debt to them, doing us far more harm than good; in short, it is counter productive.
- The second is centered on the concept that it's far better to define the core problems and create meaningful solutions than to resort to band aid fixes. The core problem is that China's environmental protection, human
rights and nationally subsidized industrial policies create a massive and immoral cost advantage. Equalization is the solution; the creation of an environmental and humanitarian equalization tariff is the vehicle.
Although ill-defined, there is a dollar value connected to protecting our environment and quality of life, and at least short term it is expensive. As a country we have decided it is money well spent, and we must aggressively protect that decision; at least within our borders.
There is no question that countries which do not respect these values, while massively subsidizing exports, have a huge cost advantage in international commerce. We need to make adjustments in order to compete with them economically, and contrary to the beliefs of the short sighted, this does not mean lowering our standards to meet theirs. It does mean punishing the "dumping" which has all but killed many of our core manufacturing industries, including solar energy.
Obviously, we cannot continue to subsidize these nations at the expense of our own; the goal has to be the creation of a level playing field. It is my opinion that as a nation, we need to immediately do the calculations needed to define the real and total costs of sound environmental policys, fair working conditions and good wages, and use these numbers as a factual basis for creating a meaningful solution to inequitably priced imports.
Based on those calculations, the solution is the creation of an environmental and human exploitation levy to be placed on all countries who want access to our markets and whose humanitarian polices are below those we have adopted. For those who share our values, there would be little or no levy, for those who do not, the costs would be substantial. The proceeds would then be used to fund national technology and job creation initiatives.
In my opinion, these actions would force countries like China, India and others to clean up their acts in order to compete fairly in international markets; while helping us attain the critically important goals of restoring our onshore manufacturing base and good paying jobs, the middle class, and upward mobility.
- 8 hours ago
- Zilong Zhao replied:
Are you nuts?Recommend
1. When US was at the peak of her industrialization, did she consult or ask for agreement when she polluted the environment and burnt so much fossil fuels relative to others?
2. What do you mean by subsidizing exports? What do you think US has been doing for decades to protect her agricultural sectors? And when you are talking about subsidizing, didn't you think of Solyndra and the other two solar companies that received massive subsidies but went bankrupt. How about the bailing out of US banks, GM and Chrysler? Don't you get any goose pimple for being such a hypocrite?
3. If you want to trade on a level playing field, you need to get your country's fiscal and monetary policies fixed instead of demanding others to heed to US senseless commands.
4. Don't accuse other countries of illegally gaining US military and industrial secrets. If US have the proofs, please expose them to the world, otherwise whining daily on such accusations are nothing short of stupid and barbaric. Accusing others without facts is an easy and coward thing to do.
5. Don't think that US can force China of anything without seriously causing more damages to itself. US would not have restrained herself from doing anything to gain and take the fullest advantages over others.- 1 hour ago
- Alex Temenid replied:
While the US does indeed need to address its fiscal concerns, to balance its current account it also has no choice but to adopt the merchantilist policies of nations like China.Recommend- 29 minutes ago
- Fred Schwacke replied: (your comment)
I appreciate your comments and totally agree with some. We definitely abused the environment in the past when arguably we did not understand the consequences. Unfortunately, to a lesser extent we still do. Although the unenlightened self-interest of some forms their defense against incontrovertible scientific evidence, the importance of protecting the environment is perhaps today’s top priority. The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify their continuation, nor does it justify supporting the ability of others to profit from similar abuses.
As a Nation we certainly made massive investments in our agricultural sector resulting in America becoming the world's leading food producer. It must also be said that China forbids the importation of U.S. beef. There were, and still are, wrongs and abuses done along the way, and the people of America are fighting to correct them. Bailing out the auto industry was a hard pill to swallow, but Main Street overwhelmingly saw the importance of supporting one of the most important sectors of our economy and its industrial base. This was Americans supporting Americans through loans, not subsidies. Although imperfect, this worked brilliantly by saving jobs, an entire industry, yielding a line of far superior products, and re-inventing what promises to be a healthy cornerstone industry. Let's not forget that those loans are being repaid. It is America at its best and requires no apology.
Regarding Solyndra et al, there is no question they have failed financially at our taxpayer’s expense. The questions are how they fit into the big picture, what underlying benefits they produced, why they failed, and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening again? Clearly, there are hidden internal factors which led to these failures, and questions about the wisdom of these specific investments.
In fairness, China’s huge subsidization of their solar industry enabled anti-competitive dumping and the resulting artificial depression of worldwide market prices. These subsidies, made possible largely by their blind eye on human rights and ecology, made a huge contribution to these failures. How would this have been handled in China; even bigger subsidies?
Creating national initiatives make good sense when developing important technologies for the future, both here and internationally. Our space program is a shining example of what they can achieve, and also the errors which need to be addressed. Keep in mind, the resulting economic benefits this investment has been enjoyed around the world.
You are 100% right, bailing out the massively corrupt U.S. financial system was a big mistake, it is truly “too big to succeed” and anti-competitive. Our financial policies are seriously flawed and need a thorough overhaul and the main stream of American people are aggressively fighting to correct these problems; in spite of the real obstacles in their path, they are showing signs of winning.
Your comments about China’s national policy of IT and technology theft is self-serving and disingenuous. While deny, deny, deny is a popular defense for the indefensible, it is always transparent.
I’m not demanding anything from China, or anyone else, I’m simply saying if you want access to our markets, your products must adhere to our rules and standards. Every nation has that right. There is a huge debate here as to what those criteria should be, but although the effort to compete with less enlightened competitors is clouding the discussion, we are moving in the right direction. America cannot allow others the power to force us to follow their path.
In the end, it may be seen by some it as hypocritical & by others as pragmatic or unrealistic, but we must put America first, just as China is. At the same time, we must benefit from 20/20 hindsight and do it sensibly and honorably, with a major emphasis on protecting our hard earned technologies, human rights and the environment, and we have the right to expect the same from those who want access to our country and its markets.
- 1 hour ago
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for adding your opinion and welcome those that differ from ours, all we ask is the comments be constructive and tasteful. All messages will be moderated, but solely on those criteria.