1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/6798/using-the-fear-factor-to-hate-china-and-wal-mart/

Using the Fear Factor to Hate China and Wal-Mart

June 30, 2007 by

The headline reads: “What to do when everything is Made in China?: A one-week attempt to avoid products from there meets with little success.” Of course this is a push on the part of the Buy American-Protectionist crowd to scare people away from China’s imported goods and thus support the move toward the regulation of trade with China.

The test here, according to the article, was for “patriotic” Americans to go shopping and buy goods not made in China. It failed not because of the small amount of goods they found that were made in the US, but because those goods that were made in America were not competitive in price vs their import alternatives. So the buyers immediately rejected them and moved on.

Before you think that this latest round of China-bashing is not a push for protectionist legislation, note that the tainted food issues are being used – on the part of government bureaucrats and special interest groups – to convince Americans that they must hate China, distrust its products, and thus reject what it imports. MSNBC runs this headline: “Tainted Chinese goods could lead to trade war.” The story, as one would expect, is breezy in its attitude toward plastic trinkets that can easily be returned to Wal-Mart, but it enforces the notion that food and toys (“the children” must be invoked, of course) are a whole different concern altogether. Two quotes:

“Quality is one thing, safety is a different matter, and if we continue to hear this drumbeat of safety (problems), that could clearly impact consumers’ perception of goods made in China,” said Jack Ablin, chief investment officer at Harris Private Bank in Chicago.

“The Chinese better take heed and crack down hard (on faulty goods) now or they will be faced with anti-Chinese trade legislation soon,” said Andrew Busch, global foreign-exchange strategist with BMO Capital Markets in Chicago..

Those who are obsessed with the US trade deficit and China’s stance on the yuan see this “China taint controversy” as the perfect opportunity to strike, and, as usual, they use “safety” as the driver to get the masses riled up enough to support their anti-trade, protectionist agenda. Invoking the notion of poisoned food and “the children” enhances the fear factor and serves the state’s parti pris. To be sure, anywhere that “China” is mentioned in the same breath as “trade,” a mention of the many evils of Wal-Mart can’t be too far behind. Wal-Mart’s crime is being a colossal retailer of low-priced Chinese-made goods that give Americans workable alternatives and save them money.

A group calling themselves WakeUpWalMart.com is currently running an ad that essentially tells Mom and Pop America that they support terrorism when they shop at Wal-Mart. The ad states that “China ships weapons to the terrorists in Afghanistan,” the ad says. “Weapons the terrorists use to attack our troops. So before you shop at Wal-Mart, think about that. This July 4th, be a patriot.” See the ad for yourself.

{ 11 comments }

Christopher Hettinger June 30, 2007 at 7:56 pm

It reminds me vaguely of the Disney-shorts ran during World War II for propaganda, most involving Donald Duck.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FZOdXg3zhlI

Listen to this protectionist-statist warfare nonsense. =)

Björn Lundahl July 1, 2007 at 2:06 am

The Emperor’s New Clothes

People are led to believe that trade restrictions between regions or countries “create jobs at home”, which they certainly do not. If people had the opposite belief that “free trade” between regions or countries “creates jobs at home”, that would also be an incorrect belief. Trade restrictions or free trade does not cause unemployment or cause employment in a region or country. Trade restrictions only lower the standard of living, hamper competition and restrict liberty. If for instance, the EU imposes tariffs on Chinese textiles, the Euro will appreciate against the Chinese Yuan (the value of the Euro will increase relatively to the Chinese Yuan). This depreciation (decrease in value) of the Chinese Yuan against the Euro, in this example, is caused by a smaller demand for Chinese textiles and therefore a smaller demand for Europeans to buy the Chinese Yuan. Because of this change in exchange rates, prices of goods from the EU to China will be generally higher and prices of goods from China will be generally lower (apart from textiles). As you can imagine, this will increase employment in the European textile sector, but decrease employment in other sectors. At the whole, unemployment will not change but trade between the regions will be lower. Specialization, competition and living standards in the EU region will be hampered. The tariffs will only serve special interest that is the textile manufacturers and their employees. Surely, we want our representatives to serve the common good and the common man and not special interests!

Someone might complain that the Chinese are intervening in the exchange markets to keep their currency artificially low and that they are not letting market forces to appreciate their currency, and therefore my statement about free trade, in this case, is not applicable. Free trade, someone might think, is presupposed by freely fluctuating currencies with no Government intervention (also called clean floating exchange rates). Certainly I do not want Governments to intervene in exchange markets, but actually it is the Chinese that are in this case the losers and we are the winners. We should be glad that China is suppressing the rise of its currency, and the Chinese people should be mad about it. When market prices indicate that, for example, a project is unprofitable; investors naturally stop investing in such a project. Otherwise, factors of production such as land, capital, and labour would be wasted. Every government manipulation of market prices is a step toward economic breakdown and chaos. Land, capital, and labour that are invested in the exporting business in China because of a suppressed currency, have changed the economic structure in China and are mal investments, unprofitable for the nation to undertake, and we are getting something free. We don’t need to export anything to pay for this “extra importation of Chinese products”. To make my statement more obvious, we could consider that if the Chinese currency would be suppressed to no value at all (which would not be possible to realize), the Chinese would be working for nothing and we would get goods and services from China for free (which is, naturally unprofitable for China to undertake), then the market forces in the EU (if market forces would not be hindered by Governments) would reallocate land, capital and labour for other uses and to those fields which the Chinese are not able to compete (even if the Chinese were working and exporting to full capacity, that will not, by far, be enough to satisfy all our wants, in other words, their GNP is by far, too small). The increases in production which mentioned reallocation of recourses leads to are our extra bonus. We should applaud this and the Chinese people should revolt!*

If you want to know more about floating exchange rates, go to;

http://www.hooverdigest.org/974/friedman.html

Productivity and trade will flourish more intensively with one currency** than with several different currencies, and even with one currency, market forces will smoothen out any imbalances between regions, cities or countries. We do not worry, for example, about the balance of payments between London and Manchester, Berlin and Munich, Paris and Bordeaux or Stockholm and Göteborg etc. If, for example, London exports more to Manchester than Manchester exports to London, the demand for goods and services will be greater in London relatively to their supply, and also relatively to the situation in Manchester. Because of this, prices will go up in London and therefore will exports from London to Manchester contract, as well as, imports from Manchester to London will expand. This happens all the time and we do not even know about it and therefore do not worry about it. Governments do create problems all the time.

If we really want increased competition, why not adopt free trade between nations. Why does the EU and the USA not follow that path? The reason is that they do not want increased competition.

For an example, I quote from answers.com;

“In the United States, the decade from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s saw import quotas placed on textiles, agricultural products, automobiles, sugar, beef, bananas, and even underwear—among other things. In a single session of Congress in 1985, more than three hundred protectionist bills were introduced as U.S. industries began voicing concern over foreign competition”.
Go to;

http://www.answers.com/import+quotas?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3

Only Governments can be so silly to reject great offers and bargains. Individuals doing the same thing would be considered mad.

The essence with above statement is that Governments hinders competition, lower our standard of living, promote special interests and they make excuses for this with faulty theories and propaganda.

Björn Lundahl
Göteborg Sweden

* From the book, “Dollars and Deficits, Inflation, Monetary Policy and the Balance of Payments”, by Dr. Milton Friedman published in 1968, chapter nine “Free Exchange Rates”, pages 230-231:

“What objections have been raised against floating rates?

One is the allegation that we cannot move to floating rates on our own, that just as two governments are now involved in pegging each rate, so it will take two to unpeg. This is in one sense correct, yet it is irrelevant. The United States can announce that it will no longer try to keep the dollar from depreciating- i.e., in the case of the pound, no longer try to prevent the price of the pound from rising above $2.82. If Britain wants to take on the task of keeping the price of the pound from rising, fine. It can do so only by either being willing to accumulate dollars indefinitely-which is to say, by extending us an unlimited line of credit-or by adapting its internal policy to ours, so that the free market rate stays below $2.82. In either case, we can only gain, not lose.”

Naturally the same principle is at work in regard to that the Chinese central bank (People’s Bank of China) keeps pegging the Chinese Yuan from appreciating against the dollar or against the euro.

** A gold standard. See also “What Has Government Done to Our Money?” by Murray N. Rothbard.

http://mises.org/money.asp

Björn Lundahl July 1, 2007 at 2:12 am

Imports are prerequisites for exports.

If not anyone wants to import, there wouldn’t be any demand to exchange a national currency for example dollars for yuan, yen, euros, pounds etc and no exporter would be able to exchange their takings of yuan, yen, euros, pounds etc for dollars.

Exports are prerequisites for imports.

If not anyone wants to export, there wouldn’t be any supply of yuan, yen, euros, pounds etc in exchange for dollars and not anyone who wants to import would be able to buy yuan, yen, euros, pounds etc for dollars.

Imports and exports are intertwined.

The Chinese, for example, are therefore deluding themselves by making themselves poorer when they intervene in the currency market for the purpose to subsidize exports by depreciating the value of the yuan against the dollar. Those extra dollars takings are not in a free market demanded by the Chinese. The Americans on the other hand should not complain as it is they who are subsidized by the Chinese.

Poor people are subsidizing rich people. I know that the Chinese are not communists any more, but is this not going too far?

Björn Lundahl

rtr July 1, 2007 at 5:31 am

jörn Lundahl: “If not anyone wants to import, there wouldn’t be any demand to exchange a national currency for example dollars for yuan, yen, euros, pounds etc and no exporter would be able to exchange their takings of yuan, yen, euros, pounds etc for dollars.”

En espagnol. Muchos confusion, free trade. Basic economic Lawls.

jörn Lundahl: “The Chinese, for example, are therefore deluding themselves by making themselves poorer”

Que idioto, que stupido, que mas, action, trade, /slap yourself. Pirate.bay internet support left, yipeee, el clapo., please.

Yweah, in English? Fw3ck Sv33den? Se Malo. Mweh, e’Nugh threads of transferrance ….

Speaka say romancia languagiaZ rapido + faster! Majoring in cash, minoring in ass? bITCH please.

rtr July 1, 2007 at 5:47 am

“That which is received is valued more than that which is given away in exchange”.

Never refuted. The “other” ‘Austrians’ on the Poster said? …

Zip Zero. Stingy with deniro. 2007 dollaroz > PETTY L,OST austrian skoolio-dilo …, rtr on that poster, n’est-ce-pas?, hell ya! And? Translate into another language how how U missed it? Portarse … heee-heeee. Fuego. Non correcto mucho0s patento! Vamanos! Si. Nuevo1!1!

Ha ha! No N.P. display this time.

Armand rousso July 1, 2007 at 11:47 am

China is not an easy country to work with, even big major like Danone have difficulties. Armand Rousso

Sollozzo July 1, 2007 at 3:54 pm

rtr, am I reading this wrong or are you under the influence of narcotic substances as you write? It’s like a crazy mix of Spanish, English, Italian, 1337-speak, and lots of other things that I don’t even know how to describe.

marifah.net July 2, 2007 at 7:07 am

Thanks for the article, it sheds quite some light.

Scott D July 2, 2007 at 9:38 am

Post by post, rtr makes himself less relevant.

I find it ironic that we can see “dampen consumer sentiment, slow demand for Chinese imports, and boost support for trade restrictions,” all in the same sentence. If demand for Chinese imports drops, why do we need trade restrictions? Am I silly for thinking that this might motivate Chinese manufacturers to clean up their act?

Ah, but that would break the precedent of punishing the victim as well as the perpetrator that our government so wisely advocates. If American consumers want something, its the government’s responsibility to code it into law and shove it down their throats in the most obtuse and lasting way possible.

Brooks July 13, 2007 at 4:22 pm

I am 4th generation owner of a 100% domestic furniture operation specializing in the hospitality industry. I have been reading quite a few blogs today and find myself grinning from ear to ear.
My company has fallen into what I call the “idiots niche”… we stuck with America through the bad without shifting production else-where. By simply being able to survive I will be able to name my price and will have little to no competition. (for a undeterminable amount of time)As I said “grinning from ear to ear”
The American consumer has one his/herself to blame and my business will shoot through the roof because of the shortsightedness and stupidity of these multinational coorperations as well as the consumers/customers that shewed my business at the first sight of away a low price. nice one!

armand rousso July 15, 2007 at 2:23 pm

I agree with ” Someone might complain that the Chinese are intervening in the exchange markets to keep their currency artificially low and that they are not letting market forces to appreciate their currency, and therefore my statement about free trade” Armand rousso

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: