NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/18/business/textile.php
Remember when the quota on textiles was lifted? Well, Chinese textile exports surged, depressing prices for everyone, including other producers and consumers.
My question is this: why is China being punished for its efficiency? For one, a great deal of thhat surge was created by the quotas themselves, as the anticipation of there expiration was too great in China. Much (though not all) of the new production will wither away. But this represents a greater problem. The United States used to be a country that rewarded success and efficiency. Now, we are punishing it, using it to protect domestic producers who are too weak to compete on their own. All the while, we are driving up prices for consumers, includding those that can't afford that many clothes. Why the maddness? Why punish greatness? Doesn't the government realize that it'd be best to let a free market sort this out, and not their clumsy hands?

The answer to the U.S's position is a simple one: "Do as I say, not as I do."

:rolleyes: China? Efficient? Now there is an oxymoron of the year. I really don't want to go into how screwed China is going to be in about 40 years to come.

Free markets never work right. Markets must be regulated. Some regulation of textile production and sale is important because:
1) The US wants to retain some capacity to prodce it's own textiles for reasons of self-sufficiecy.
2) The US wants to retain some manufacturing sector jobs so that we don't end up with a shitload of people on welfare.
3) Globalization's most talked about benefit is that it can improve the economies of poor countries. China's economy isn't hurting as much as some other nations. By regulating globalization we can make sure that the production goes where it's needed most.

The answer to the U.S's position is a simple one: "Do as I say, not as I do."
Unfortunatly, that applies to many nations, not just the US. This even includes the PRC. They aren't above double talk of their own. IIn fact, it is an art there.

Free markets never work right. Markets must be regulated. Some regulation of textile production and sale is important because:
1) The US wants to retain some capacity to prodce it's own textiles for reasons of self-sufficiecy.
2) The US wants to retain some manufacturing sector jobs so that we don't end up with a shitload of people on welfare.
3) Globalization's most talked about benefit is that it can improve the economies of poor countries. China's economy isn't hurting as much as some other nations. By regulating globalization we can make sure that the production goes where it's needed most.
Essentially, you talk about self sufficiency. I guess that means I should live in a cabin in the woods, hunt my own food, make my own clloth, and make anytnhing else I need. I don't want to be dependent on some North Carolinan or Texan for everything.
My point is that this is natural. Until about three hundred years ago, most were living the life I described, buying only what they absolutely needed to. Until a hundred years ago, the state economy trumpeted the national one. Every nation can't be self sufficient, and even if some nations, like the US, is capable of it, it dare not try. Self sufficiency is the road to Hell these days.

bump

I still can't understand how it cost 30 cents to make a beanie baby and it cost 6 bucks here. How it can cost a few dollars to make a shirt that charges $300 from Americans.

:rolleyes: China? Efficient? Now there is an oxymoron of the year. I really don't want to go into how screwed China is going to be in about 40 years to come.
Please, do.

Please, do.
I can see her point. China will have a rapidly changing age structure, followed by a sharp population drop. You know how many wonder how social security will be paid in the future in this country? Think of that problem times ten in China. And they probably will be a post industrial economy by that time. They can, of course, avoid certain death, but with the Communists around, don't count on it.

Essentially, you talk about self sufficiency. I guess that means I should live in a cabin in the woods, hunt my own food, make my own clloth, and make anytnhing else I need. I don't want to be dependent on some North Carolinan or Texan for everything.
My point is that this is natural. Until about three hundred years ago, most were living the life I described, buying only what they absolutely needed to. Until a hundred years ago, the state economy trumpeted the national one. Every nation can't be self sufficient, and even if some nations, like the US, is capable of it, it dare not try. Self sufficiency is the road to Hell these days.

The point is that we don't really want to be dependent on a country like China, because they could screw us over. The job issue is an important one, but it and the whole competition could probably be solved if we just unionized the Chinese workers. That would be really ironic too.

I still can't understand how it cost 30 cents to make a beanie baby and it cost 6 bucks here. How it can cost a few dollars to make a shirt that charges $300 from Americans.
Because it changes many hands. There may not be one producer of Beanie Babies in China. On top of that, it must pass through a shipping company, a company to transport it in the US, maybe a wholesaler, and a retailer. There may be middlemen the entire way.

The point is that we don't really want to be dependent on a country like China, because they could screw us over. The job issue is an important one, but it and the whole competition could probably be solved if we just unionized the Chinese workers. That would be really ironic too.
I have nothing against unions. I am appalled that the government allows no unions, save its own. However, if organized labor ever does become big like it did in the West, then the Chinese are in for trouble. Because of the population size, unions will be even more powerful, and will allow for less say by an individual laborer.
Anyhow, I do see your point. I just figure that the Chinese government is too dependent on the rest of the world to pull any Mao era stunts. Besides, I'm figuring that the government will ultimatly collapse because it has opened its economy. Like I said, the Chinese government has released forces beyond its control.

I can see her point. China will have a rapidly changing age structure, followed by a sharp population drop. You know how many wonder how social security will be paid in the future in this country? Think of that problem times ten in China. And they probably will be a post industrial economy by that time. They can, of course, avoid certain death, but with the Communists around, don't count on it.
Mini-bio: I'm a 20 year old gay male, living in Los Angeles. I love West Hollywood (not clubbing, just hanging out in a cafe and such with my bf) - WeHo
Got Pride? I fight against those who are against democratic rights, like christian fundamentalists and nazis.

Mini-bio: I'm a 20 year old gay male, living in Los Angeles. I love West Hollywood (not clubbing, just hanging out in a cafe and such with my bf) - WeHo
Got Pride? I fight against those who are against democratic rights, like christian fundamentalists and nazis.
You've lost me. How does this relate to anything that anyone has said?

I can see her point. China will have a rapidly changing age structure, followed by a sharp population drop. You know how many wonder how social security will be paid in the future in this country? Think of that problem times ten in China. And they probably will be a post industrial economy by that time. They can, of course, avoid certain death, but with the Communists around, don't count on it.

Her? His you mean. I'm a guy.

You named all the problems, and CSW is just too blind to notice that. I have gone into it many times on this forum, often going into lecturing mode. Don't believe me civil unrest is coming in China? Because it certainly is already there:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/447c6022-100d-11da-bd5c-00000e2511c8.html

"Mr Zhou said the authorities dealt with 74,000 protests and riots nationwide last year, involving more than 3.7m people, compared with 10,000 incidents in 1994. "

China is seriously fucked.

The title should be "China sets up new police units to combat and execute protesters". Somehow I highly doubt they'll be fighting terrorists with it.