China: Most Favored, But Nobody's Favorite

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, China has probably been the nation most consistently disliked and distrusted by Americans. That's hardly unreasonable considering the reasons China tends to make the headlines: human rights abuses, poor working conditions, and imperialistic policies towards Tibet, Taiwan, and others. Perhaps the only good press China can get with any regularity is related to its rise into an economic superpower, but the methods China has used to rise are themselves very controversial. China the economic power is associated with cheap labor, currency manipulation, and indifference towards (if not complete neglect of) safety concerns.

China may not be loved, but its impact on American pocketbooks has been complex and by no means entirely negative. The abundance of cheap Chinese goods has enabled the average American to buy more. Despite recurring campaigns to get people to "Buy American," retailers like Wal-Mart that market mainly Chinese goods continue to attract millions of American consumers. There are definitely two sides to China's economic impact on the United States. You could focus on the American manufacturing jobs relocated to China, but you could also focus on the new jobs created by Wal-Mart, which is essentially a mass market for Chinese goods and definitely owes a lot of its continuing prosperity to China. Personally, I also think it's a good thing the prices of electronics are low enough that the average American can own a TV and a computer if they want to. I won't attribute that to China specifically, but China is certainly a major supplier of cheap electronics right now and consequently it is helping Americans become connected in an increasingly information-oriented world.

Ultimately, how one feels about China trade tends to depend a lot on how one feels about free trade. Personally, I support free trade when it is accompanied by free information -- that is, I like the notion of a global market in which every country can buy or sell, which will naturally lead to specialization by those that can supply particular things more cheaply than others, but I think that the flow of information about the goods and services that are bought and sold needs to be as free as the trade itself. Some would rightly chastise China over its own commitment to free trade, but in my opinion China's real failure has been caused by its opposition to the free flow of information. What China has become in many people's minds is a peddler of poison, but the poison has been labeled as pet food or as toys rather than for what it really is. A lack of commitment to safety in both China and the United States has enabled imported and mislabeled Chinese poison to cause death, heartache, and anxiety, which is unacceptable in my opinion. I'm confident that the market will speak, eventually -- nobody really wants to substitute poison, even cheap poison, for food or toys -- but the tragedy is that this situation could repeat itself if consumers and governments don't gain greater access to information about all products bought and sold on the global market. The hysteria over Chinese toys right now could soon be eclipsed by a health crisis caused by Vietnamese catfish or Mexican textiles. The overall problem will remain so long as information is not free and widely available.

I heard some good things from the Democrats in the Iowa NPR debate on the China issue. Barack Obama and Joe Biden impressed me with their commitment to address China trade issues within the context of existing free trade agreements. Obama suggested that American inspectors should inspect Chinese exports in China before they ever reach American shores like Japan does for Chinese goods destined for China. That sounds like a good idea to me -- as long as there is some reasonably thorough inspection going on at some point in the trading process, we will be better off than we are now. Biden and Obama agreed that America had every right to choose to apply much more pressure on China than it has chosen to apply to this point. Biden refused to countenance the idea of a tariff war and instead argued that the World Trade Organization offered enough tools to enable America to stand up for its rights. Not every candidate was so keen on continuing business as usual. Dennis Kucinich is unashamedly protectionist. For him, China trade is just one big stumbling block. Even if it wasn't dangerous to Americans' health, China trade would still weaken American manufacturing and take away American jobs. He makes about as good a case against free trade as I have ever heard, and he is certainly consistent in his positions (for instance, he's as opposed to NAFTA as he is to free China trade). You certainly cannot argue that many of the "free trader" legislators that support subsidies for certain domestic producers are as consistent in their political philosophy. Kucinich's point of view was not the most unique expressed, however: Mike Gravel was the one candidate who seemed to be eager to support China. Bear in mind that the former Alaska senator's speaking time in the NPR debate was severely limited so he undoubtedly didn't get his chance to get his fair say in on any of the issues discussed. Nonetheless, Gravel did articulate one message fairly clearly: namely, he criticized the Democrats who condemned China for not considering Chinese interests as well as American interests when formulating America's trade policies. I do agree with Gravel in the sense that the far-reaching consequences of all political actions should be considered, but in the context of the debate Gravel sounded frankly as indifferent to safety concerns as the Chinese industrialists have shown themselves to be. That point of view is not really consistent with what I know of Gravel, but I have to strongly disagree with him if he thinks bettering the economic situation of China by continuing uninterrupted trade with China is more important than protecting pets, children, and everyone else who actually uses those goods.