Originally posted by Dowding:
Miko, if it's as simple as you say to create such immediate benefit to the US economy, then why wasn't it done before this crisis, why were China given most favoured trading partner status and why all the lobbying by American multinationals to open the Chinese market? It cannot be as simple as you make out.
Because it is not that simple. There are trade agreements and organisations aimed towards opening of the trade.
It is not considered a good gesture to restrict someone's access to your markets without a good reason - like the country in question attacking planes in international space or at least pretending that the product is dangerous (like American meat - hehe...).
Yes, we are losing money/jobs to some countries because we adhere to agreements. A recession in US is not a good reason for us to renege on our international agreements and obligations.
Yes, there are those selling to China and they are interested in trade.
Yes, there are those buying from China at cheaper price because chinese can be paid less, jailed and make to work or not bother to spend money protecting people/environment. Those are also interested in more trade.
There also people who think that opening trade with China will spread democracy.
All those groups are lobbying for more trade with China.
Also chinese themselves with their contribution to our presidential campaigns.
The manufacturers who cannot compete with Chinese slave labor, workers who lose their jobs because of that and people who think that trade with Chinese communists is just helping the enemy - those lobby against trade with China.
For one thing, certain sectors of the US economy would benefit, but others would be hit by an embargo - this might produce a disproportionate effect. You must be slow today... Of course some would benefit and some would be hit. We have $60 billions trade deficit. That means that some already benefit and some are already hit to the tune of $60 billions in favor of those being hit. What is there to speculate?
The only reason we could lose more then we would gain is if we were buying some strategic or high-tech stuff that we could not get any other way. That is definitely not the case.
We are biying consumer junk and they are buying industrial equipment, infrastructure, technology, etc.
Of course everyone could lose in the long run on the trade limitations - because of less competition and more expencive products. (US would lose less, of course because we have larger internal market and better technology.) But in case of financing a single hostile power through trade, not losing may cost more in the long run.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 04-11-2001).]
