It's déjà vu all over again! GM again caves to Chinese pressure. In September it was the electric car. In April it was the Cadillac.
The Chinese government made its latest move in December. That's when TheGuardian reported that the Chinese government raised its already high 25% tariff upon American-made vehicles, concerned that increasing numbers of big-engine cars were being purchased by Chinese consumers:
I thought Adam Smith put mercantilism to bed 250 years ago. Messrs Richman obviously didn't get the memo.
Most of what is manufactured in China is designed, engineered, and marketed in the United States. In other words, the high-value work occurs in the United States, the Cooley labor occurs in China. (And it doesn't matter if China demands GM turn over its technology. Knowing something is one thing, implementing it is another. And very, very few can implement. )
Let China raise its import tariff 100% on U.S. imports and let China heavily subsidize exports to the United States; that's great for U.S. consumers. Only an idiot would retaliate with a similar policy. That's like saying "China shot holes in its boat perhaps we would do the same."
The following is a pure strawman and reveals no understanding of basic economic. China, according to the Richmans, "is using trade to acquire economic and military power for itself and to bring down the economic power of the United States."
First of all, trade isn't a a football game or political contest. Trade isn't a zero-sum game. What's more, economic development involves competition AND COOPERATION between individuals. It's not China V. United States.
I suspected this article was a product of no original thought when it began with the hidebound and hackneyed "It's like deja vu all over again." By the time I finished, I was proven right.
Response to this comment by M, 5/11/2012: Joe? You haven't proven (to my satisfaction) that merchantalsim does not exist.
You exhibit a pathological lack of concern for the defenseless working men and women of this country. "Let China raise its import tariff 100% on U.S. imports and let China heavily subsidize exports to the United States; that´s great for U.S. consumers."
Well not exaxtly.
There are real men and women who have lost their jobs due to countries like China, Japan, Mexico, and others which have implimented merchantalistic trade policies. Those men and women might have a bone to pick with you about their new found lack of ability to consume. Frankly, I have a problem with your mindless cheerleading for the primary beneficiaries of the status quo (I.E. multi-national corporation shareholders).
It really boils down to - ?Whose Ox is being gored?
I assume you don't have any skin in the game, because your job can't be sent off shore. Good for you! Not everyone is as fortunate.
Response to this comment by Howard Richman, 5/11/2012: Indeed, mercantilism is alive and well and has been quite successful in recent years. Adam Smith was not correct when he held that mercantilsm reduced the mercantilist country's consumption. U. of Chicago economist Jacob Viner and Chinese economist Heng-Fu Zou found a difference that Smith had missed along the long-run short-run dimension. In the short-run the mercantilist country get less consumption, but in the long run it gets more consumption and power. In the short-run its victim gets more consumption, but in the long run it gets less consumption and power.
Comment by Sree, 8/22/2012:
Sometimes keeping your risk management plan but executing your trades on a shorter time frame may be an effective way to lower your stop loss in pip value, while staying within the parameters of that plan. Thanks a lot.
American Thinker is a circadian bourgeois online annual ambidextrous with American politics, adopted policy, civic security, spiel spiele Israel, economics, diplomacy, ability and aggressive strategy. American Thinker has been mentioned in added media including Le Monde, jeux de cuisine The Guardian, Inter Press Service, Campus Watch, and the New York Times.
Comment by Tuna ton, 9/27/2012:
I work at a car donation office and this is the first time that i hear of a made in China Cadillac. How is this possible? I must check this information on other sources because something smells fishy and i don't like fish.
[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]
I thought Adam Smith put mercantilism to bed 250 years ago. Messrs Richman obviously didn't get the memo.
Most of what is manufactured in China is designed, engineered, and marketed in the United States. In other words, the high-value work occurs in the United States, the Cooley labor occurs in China. (And it doesn't matter if China demands GM turn over its technology. Knowing something is one thing, implementing it is another. And very, very few can implement. )
Let China raise its import tariff 100% on U.S. imports and let China heavily subsidize exports to the United States; that's great for U.S. consumers. Only an idiot would retaliate with a similar policy. That's like saying "China shot holes in its boat perhaps we would do the same."
The following is a pure strawman and reveals no understanding of basic economic. China, according to the Richmans, "is using trade to acquire economic and military power for itself and to bring down the economic power of the United States."
First of all, trade isn't a a football game or political contest. Trade isn't a zero-sum game. What's more, economic development involves competition AND COOPERATION between individuals. It's not China V. United States.
I suspected this article was a product of no original thought when it began with the hidebound and hackneyed "It's like deja vu all over again." By the time I finished, I was proven right.