Ideal Taxes Association

Raymond Richman       -       Jesse Richman       -       Howard Richman

 Richmans' Trade and Taxes Blog

NY Times ignores China's R&D Rules
Howard Richman, 3/20/2010

In a story in the March 17 New York Times celebrating U.S. R&D moving to China (China Drawing High-Tech Research from U.S.), Keith Bradsher completely failed to mention the Chinese government’s new November and December rules requiring that American firms move their R&D and patents to China as a condition for doing business with the Chinese government.

Although the New York Times may have missed the story of these rules, the Wall Street Journal did not. On February 16 it reported that the Obama administration was responding with talk:

In an unusually broad response, U.S. officials from several government agencies have approached the Chinese to relay concern over the proposed rules, according to people familiar with the situation. "We are expressing our serious concerns with all appropriate counterparts in the Chinese government," said Carol Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office.

Although Keith Bradsher was reporting from China, his sources may not include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the Business Software Alliance, or any of the other 19 American trade groups, representing America's largest corporations in China, who wrote a January 26 2010 letter which explained the new rules and their threat to the American economy. Here is a key paragraph:

Of most immediate concern are new rules issued by the Chinese government in November to establish a national catalogue of products to receive significant preferences for government procurement. Among the criteria for eligibility for the catalogue is that the products contain intellectual property that is developed and owned in China and that any associated trademarks are originally registered in China. This represents an unprecedented use of domestic intellectual property as a market-access condition and makes it nearly impossible for the products of American companies to qualify unless they are prepared to establish Chinese brands and transfer their research and development of new products to China.

The letter also points out that in a government-dominated economy, such as China’s, the rules will affect procurement throughout the economy:

The November directive was followed in late December by the announcement that the government would develop a broader catalogue of indigenous innovation products and sectors to be afforded preferences beyond government procurement (i.e., including subsidies and other preferential treatment). The December announcement, which was issued by four Chinese agencies including the State Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), also raises the specter of China subtly encouraging its many state-owned enterprises to discriminate against foreign companies in the context of procurement, including for commercial purposes.

With the New York Times ignoring this story, columnist Paul Krugman may not have known about it when he put together his plan of a 25% tariff to encourage a Chinese currency revaluation. Krugman's goal was too limited. Chinese trade manipulations go way beyond just currency manipulations They are practicing the mercantilist policy of maximizing exports while minimizing imports in order to steal their trading partners' industries.

While their currency manipulations are hidden, the trade deficits are easily measured.  The tariff rate should be announced as being proportional to U.S.-China trade deficits, not in proportion to the U.S. Treasury's determination of currency manipulations. Such tariffs are specifically permitted by a special WTO rule which lets trade deficit countries apply import duties in order to balance trade.

With this mechanism in place, if our trade deficit with China comes down, the tariff rate would come down; if our trade deficit with China goes up, the tariff rate would go up. If our trade with China reaches relative balance, the tariff would disappear.

The American government is currently letting China make rules excluding American companies from selling in China unless they produce in China and do their research and development in China and move their patents to China. If we consent to this, we will eventually become a third world country.

It’s time that the New York Times reveal the truth to American policy makers. There is no reason why we should continue to let China steal our industries!

Your Name:

Post a Comment:

Comment by China guy, 3/21/2010:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce does not exist in China. Instead it is called the American Chamber of Commerce.... this seems like a semantic difference, but actually much more so than that...

Comment by Zhuubaajie, 3/22/2010:

Perhaps that is how Jewish folks are taught as y'all grow up, as how to repaid your benefactors.  The Chinese would have called that sort of conduct being ingrates.   For the last 30 years, China has been most kind to America - well priced Made in China consumer goods (99.9% of which were of good quality) have kept inflation at bay, and the recycled dollars had kept American interest low, leading to rise in asset values all around, increasing the wealth of most Americans.  Everything was great until the American Bankster Clan got greedy, and robbed the world of that prosperity, with their CDS fraud of over $100 Trillion.  No future can survive that sort of massive fraud.  Yes Americans should get angry, but the anger should be directed at the fraudsters.  Even the Brits punished their own banksters by imposing a 50% surtax, expected to bring back billions in tax revenues.  But in the U.S. the Banksters have the pols so deeply in their pockets, not only was no bankster punished, they were given yet more trillions, so that they paid themselves record bonuses 2 years in a row - $20 Billion just for the few Wall Street firms for 2009!!  And to divert public attention from that heist of the millenium, we see writings by these hired guns of the Banksters, to try and put the blame on China!!

  • Richmans' Blog    RSS
  • Our New Book - Balanced Trade
  • Buy Trading Away Our Future
  • Read Trading Away Our Future
  • Richmans' Commentaries
  • ITA Working Papers
  • ITA on Facebook
  • Contact Us

    Sep 2021
    May 2021
    Apr 2021
    Feb 2021
    Jan 2021
    Dec 2020
    Nov 2020
    Oct 2020
    Jul 2020
    Jun 2020
    May 2020
    Apr 2020
    Mar 2020
    Dec 2019
    Nov 2019
    Oct 2019
    Sep 2019
    Aug 2019
    Jun 2019
    May 2019
    Apr 2019
    Mar 2019
    Feb 2019
    Jan 2019
    Dec 2018
    Nov 2018
    Aug 2018
    Jul 2018
    Jun 2018
    May 2018
    Apr 2018
    Mar 2018
    Feb 2018
    Dec 2017
    Nov 2017
    Oct 2017
    Sep 2017
    Aug 2017
    Jul 2017
    Jun 2017
    May 2017
    Apr 2017
    Mar 2017
    Feb 2017
    Jan 2017
    Dec 2016
    Nov 2016
    Oct 2016
    Sep 2016
    Aug 2016
    Jul 2016
    Jun 2016
    May 2016
    Apr 2016
    Mar 2016
    Feb 2016
    Jan 2016
    Dec 2015
    Nov 2015
    Oct 2015
    Sep 2015
    Aug 2015
    Jul 2015
    Jun 2015
    May 2015
    Apr 2015
    Mar 2015
    Feb 2015
    Jan 2015
    Dec 2014
    Nov 2014
    Oct 2014
    Sep 2014
    Aug 2014
    Jul 2014
    Jun 2014
    May 2014
    Apr 2014
    Mar 2014
    Feb 2014
    Jan 2014
    Dec 2013
    Nov 2013
    Oct 2013
    Sep 2013
    Aug 2013
    Jul 2013
    Jun 2013
    May 2013
    Apr 2013
    Mar 2013
    Feb 2013
    Jan 2013
    Dec 2012
    Nov 2012
    Oct 2012
    Sep 2012
    Aug 2012
    Jul 2012
    Jun 2012
    May 2012
    Apr 2012
    Mar 2012
    Feb 2012
    Jan 2012
    Dec 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010

    February 2010
    January 2010

    Book Reviews
    Capital Gains Taxation
    Corporate Income Tax
    Consumption Taxes
    Economy - Long Term
    Economy - Short Term
    Environmental Regulation
    Last 100 Years
    Real Estate Taxation


    Outside Links:

  • American Economic Alert
  • American Jobs Alliance
  • Angry Bear Blog
  • Economy in Crisis
  • Econbrowser
  • Emmanuel Goldstein's Blog
  • Levy Economics Institute
  • McKeever Institute
  • Michael Pettis Blog
  • Naked Capitalism
  • Natural Born Conservative
  • Science & Public Policy Inst.
  • Votersway Blog
  • Watt's Up With That


  • [An] extensive argument for balanced trade, and a program to achieve balanced trade is presented in Trading Away Our Future, by Raymond Richman, Howard Richman and Jesse Richman. “A minimum standard for ensuring that trade does benefit all is that trade should be relatively in balance.” [Balanced Trade entry]

    Journal of Economic Literature:

  • [Trading Away Our Future] Examines the costs and benefits of U.S. trade and tax policies. Discusses why trade deficits matter; root of the trade deficit; the “ostrich” and “eagles” attitudes; how to balance trade; taxation of capital gains; the real estate tax; the corporate income tax; solving the low savings problem; how to protect one’s assets; and a program for a strong America....

    Atlantic Economic Journal:

  • In Trading Away Our Future   Richman ... advocates the immediate adoption of a set of public policy proposal designed to reduce the trade deficit and increase domestic savings.... the set of public policy proposals is a wake-up call... [February 17, 2009 review by T.H. Cate]