White House to China: Open markets or face sanctions

[DekWannaBFlea]

White House to China: Open markets or face sanctions


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration Monday criticized China's record on opening its markets and said the U.S. would not hesitate to seek economic sanctions if that record does not improve.

Calling China's record "decidedly mixed," U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab released a 100-page report that accused the Chinese of failing to live up to commitments it made five years ago when it joined the World Trade Organization.

The annual report, which is required by Congress, said that stronger action was needed on the part of the Chinese government to crack down on widespread copyright piracy.

It said China should also work harder to eliminate government policies that unfairly discriminate in favor of Chinese companies and block U.S. exports and hinder American financial and other service companies seeking to do business in China.

"Certain industries face frustrating barriers to doing business in China and there are worrisome signs that China's market liberalization efforts have slowed in the last year," Schwab said in a statement.

The administration said it would not hesitate to use all the tools available including bringing cases against China before the WTO if the country did not do more to lower barriers to American exports and U.S. companies seeking to operate in China.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is leading a high-level administration team that includes seven members of Bush's Cabinet as well as Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to China for talks Thursday and Friday on various trade issues including China's currency system.

American manufacturers see China's undervalued currency as a major culprit in a U.S. trade deficit with China that is on track to surpass last year's $202 billion record.

Paulson said the new talks, dubbed the Strategic Economic Dialogue, would "lay the groundwork for important progress down the line."

"Rather than going issue by issue, we can look at all the items on the agenda and have conversations that really try to move the ball forward in many different areas," Paulson said in a speech in Washington.

In an opinion piece published Monday in the Financial Times, Schwab said, "We will clearly convey our view that a slowdown in reform hinders China's development and undermines the health of our bilateral ties."

Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, who will become chairman of the Senate Finance Committee once Democrats take control of Congress in January, said it was important for Congress to have a role in the new dialogue with China.

"Done without Congress and without addressing the toughest issues, this dialogue will be just another lost opportunity," Baucus said in a statement.
_______________________________________

Wow. Thoughts?

[EinzingerIsGod]

Good job Bush Administration once again.

[-1up!-]

Well that's just the US defending the liberal discourse and conception of economy and international relations. Nothing groundbreaking, really.

But it's quite obvious the Americans want to strengthen their economic interests in China, given they won't be the economic pole of the world for very long. My International Relations teacher quoted the results of a large analysis done by The Economist back in September which predicted that by 2025 or maximum 2030 the US will have slipped from the 1st to the 3rd place regarding its weight in the world economy, behind China and the EU.

[EinzingerIsGod]

There's no need to go throwing the US's weight around yet and threaten China with sanctions.

[Hagbard Celine]

oh the US is making threats because they want a piece of someone that won't play ball?
USA needs to sit the **** down.

[Smokey D]

Pretty good effort actually. China's unfairly manipulating the market by keeping its currency regulated.

The Economist back in September which predicted that by 2025 or maximum 2030 the US will have slipped from the 1st to the 3rd place regarding its weight in the world economy, behind China and the EU.

What this means is that it will go from being far and away the largest and richest country to something more appropriate for its size and resources. Nothing particuarly amazing.

Also, The EU is already a larger market and earns more GDP than the US if it's taken as a single entity.

[DekWannaBFlea]

The first thing that came to my mind when I saw this article is our debt.......most of our budget debt is paid through China.....and we threaten them?......Admittedly I don't know much about economics and I always find macro economic fascinating......

[griftadan]

its a bluff really, no way we'd blow what we already have going with them.

of course, they're already heading that way anyways i odn't know why were trying to do this. although i guess it'd be nice if they could cut out their monetary bullshit.

also, i'm pretty sure a fairly large portion of our debt is to domstic bondholders.

[Smokey D]

China has huge stockpiles of US dollars, but it would be extremely bad for their own economy to suddenly dump them. China depends on American trade and dropping the bottom out of the US demand would be pretty damaging for Chinese exports.

[-1up!-]

Pretty good effort actually. China's unfairly manipulating the market by keeping its currency regulated.



What this means is that it will go from being far and away the largest and richest country to something more appropriate for its size and resources. Nothing particuarly amazing.

Also, The EU is already a larger market and earns more GDP than the US if it's taken as a single entity.

Nothing particularly amazing on the economic scale, but it could bring interesting shifts in terms of politics. I'm actually eager to see what kind of role China will play in international relations once it's made clear it's holding economic hegemony.

[thedeadwalk!]

China has just opened their banks, though not many and only ones available to rich people, while the state still holds on to others. But companies are still becoming minority partners in state-run banks and taking advantage of the little room they were given to come in. I believe they said this was a $14 trillion dollar market.

I was listening to this on a NPR program which talked about China not wanting to drastically change anything economically, pointing to the past where such things went horribly wrong (don't ask me what). I think it said as well that China would do these things starting five years after they joined.

Also, even Allen Greenspan is looking forward to years of a devalued US dollar. Now, economics isn't my strongsuit but I'm pretty sure if he thinks it's a good thing it could help.

[Amit]

oh the US is making threats because they want a piece of someone that won't play ball?
USA needs to sit the **** down.

err that's not quite the situation

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

About damned time. Look how open America is to Chinese exports; it's only fair that they act in kind

[Smokey D]

Nothing particularly amazing on the economic scale, but it could bring interesting shifts in terms of politics. I'm actually eager to see what kind of role China will play in international relations once it's made clear it's holding economic hegemony.


I don't think China will ever hold the kind of exclusive hegemony possessed by the United States since the end of the Cold War. It's economic clout, significant though it is, depends very much on exporting cheap products to the first world. Because the US plays such a dominant role not only as a primary export market in itself but also as a major economic engine for other economies, it would be extremely risky for China to attempt to coerce the US to do anything.

[-1up!-]

I don't think China will ever hold the kind of exclusive hegemony possessed by the United States since the end of the Cold War. It's economic clout, significant though it is, depends very much on exporting cheap products to the first world. Because the US plays such a dominant role not only as a primary export market in itself but also as a major economic engine for other economies, it would be extremely risky for China to attempt to coerce the US to do anything.

I'd tend to agree. The US had the whole Cold War to solidify its image as leader of the free world against the super evil commies, and that alone was a significant ideological conflict from which the Americans emerged victorious, making its image and role as defender of democracy legitimate. I don't see any event in the near future giving China significant political superiority or any chance for it to gain, as you say, exclusive hegemony.

[White Riot!]

big bad bully amerika , what else is new?

[Smokey D]

big bad bully amerika , what else is new?

The PRC is hurting millions of people by keeping its currency artifically low.

I'd tend to agree. The US had the whole Cold War to solidify its image as leader of the free world against the super evil commies, and that alone was a significant ideological conflict from which the Americans emerged victorious, making its image and role as defender of democracy legitimate. I don't see any event in the near future giving China significant political superiority or any chance for it to gain, as you say, exclusive hegemony.

I was arguing it from a more economic point of view, but this is also true.

[White Riot!]

http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/art/sanctions.jpg

[Smokey D]

You're not very bright, are you?

Post something relevant.

[The Digital Pimp]

We don't need anything more from China that we already get cheap from their sweatshops anyway.

[Give me Beer]

I love how some people seem to think of this as the US 'bullying' China. China isn't playing by the rules, nor are the economic sanctions they're talking about be anything like sanctions on Cuba or Iraq. I'd guess they would increase import tariff's on Chinese goods or something in that vein...

[White Riot!]

You're not very bright, are you?

Post something relevant.

Uhh its related..sanctions and sanctions.....put two and two together......:rolleyes:


As far as I am concerned they can tariff whatever they want , as long as you americans continue to ignore the evils of the CCP

[Smokey D]

Uhh its related..sanctions and sanctions.....put two and two together......

They're not talking about an embargo.


As far as I am concerned they can tariff whatever they want , as long as you americans continue to ignore the evils of the CCP

They're forcing the CCP to stop depriving millions of non-Chinese poor people of work. It's a start, at least. Besides, the US needs to engage with China to change its practises -- they're not going to get much done by pontificating from the sidelines. Offering concrete rewards, such as participating in US trade, is a far better way to promote a favourable situation in China.

[Danish]

The PRC is hurting millions of people by keeping its currency artifically low.

I thought the yuan floated now?

********

The US is pretty hypocritical when it comes to "free" trade.

[Amit]

how is it hypocritical

[Smokey D]

I thought the yuan floated now?

It's pegged against a basket of currencies, not merely the US dollar. It's an improvement on what it was, but it's still a regulated currency.

how is it hypocritical

It maintains significant trade barriers and subsidies while pressuring other nations to drop them.

[White Riot!]

They're not talking about an embargo.



They're forcing the CCP to stop depriving millions of non-Chinese poor people of work. It's a start, at least. Besides, the US needs to engage with China to change its practises -- they're not going to get much done by pontificating from the sidelines. Offering concrete rewards, such as participating in US trade, is a far better way to promote a favourable situation in China.
you want more cheap labour?

[Smokey D]

I want more employment.

[griftadan]

maybe we can do more ourselves intern

protectionism ftl

[White Riot!]

I want more employment.

no , you want your economy to be supreme.........thats the imperialist pig attitude

[griftadan]

increasing trade by removing barriers helps every party involved in the long run.

[White Riot!]

not when the economy and law is based on serving the rich and corrupt , AKA capitialism

[griftadan]

oh i see you just don't know anything about economics

[White Riot!]

I see you know nothing about reality.

Economics is a rough theory that doesnt take reality into account. The reality is that changing agricultural farmers into cheap factory labour does not increase their living standards at all.

[griftadan]

who's opinion is that? your's? and how is there any potential for increasing the standard of living wihtout first building an industrial infrastructure? and how is that going to happen without invested capital?

[White Riot!]

who's opinion is that? your's? and how is there any potential for increasing the standard of living wihtout first building an industrial infrastructure? and how is that going to happen without invested capital?

The U.S issue with china is not china preventing the increase of industrial capital its china preventing the increase of AMERICAN capital. There is nothing wrong with this if china wants to retain capitial in house.

Simply put the U.S is soley concerned with its own coffers

[griftadan]

it doens't matter if its foriegn capital, its capital which will be used to further inustrialize their eocnomy.

of course the US is oging to look out for whats best for itself, theres nothign wrong with that in this situaiton though.

[White Riot!]

it doens't matter if its foriegn capital, its capital which will be used to further inustrialize their eocnomy.

of course the US is oging to look out for whats best for itself, theres nothign wrong with that in this situaiton though.

so you can only industrialise with U.S capitial? hmmmmm...................sounds like rhetoric to me

[italic zero]

No, this would open their markets to the whole world.

[White Riot!]

read original article. it says its preventing AMERICAN trade. it does not say other countries

[Iskandar]

increasing trade by removing barriers helps every party involved in the long run.
And protectionism exists for the short run. Markets need a leash, especially in this day and age.

[griftadan]

so you can only industrialise with U.S capitial? hmmmmm...................sounds like rhetoric to me

no, when did i say that? all i said is that it certainly helps, and china isn't just holding US products out.

[griftadan]

And protectionism exists for the short run. Markets need a leash, especially in this day and age.

people say that but i never understand why

[Iskandar]

people say that but i never understand why
Because the unmitigated market is not always beneficial and, especially when it's headed by firms which are richer and more powerful than some nations. It's a threat which needs to be protected against, just like government.

[Danish]

oh i see you just don't know anything about economics

Don't forget that politics and economics are permanently linked.

[griftadan]

Because the unmitigated market is not always beneficial and, especially when it's headed by firms which are richer and more powerful than some nations. It's a threat which needs to be protected against, just like government.

why? i see nothing wrong with allowing further foriegn capital investment

Don't forget that politics and economics are permanently linked.

i don't see how my statement overlooked that

[Iskandar]

why? i see nothing wrong with allowing further foriegn capital investment
There are always problems associated with investment and growth. It's worth sacrificing some speed and efficiency of development in order to mitigate these problems. Growth should be controlled.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

um, what exactly is this problem with investment and growth? As far as I understand it, the problem with foreign capital inflows is not the level of incestment.

[italic zero]

growth usually leads to more pollution but that's about the only negative I can think of

[Iskandar]

um, what exactly is this problem with investment and growth? As far as I understand it, the problem with foreign capital inflows is not the level of incestment.
When you take a relatively undeveloped country and invest heavily in it, without much regulation, there are plenty of problems. Don't you know anything about globalization?

Pollution is one. So are poor working conditions, destruction of culture, loss of domestic jobs, unfair market conditions, etc. These are temporary. Regulation will allow the period of growth to be palatible.

[nowhesingsnowhesobs]

Well, I agree with government regulation, so I think I misread your post.

The point I was intending to lead on to was that increased investment is not a problem in itself; I would be more concerned with financial instability that could be caused by it.

[Iskandar]

Well, I agree with government regulation, so I think I misread your post.

The point I was intending to lead on to was that increased investment is not a problem in itself; I would be more concerned with financial instability that could be caused by it.
Yeah, I know. There are manifold related problems with it that need to be addressed. Capitalism can allow for quick growth, but it is flawed.

[Smokey D]

no , you want your economy to be supreme.........thats the imperialist pig attitude

Oh yes, I plot and connive that one day the New Zealand economy might compete with China's.

read original article. it says its preventing AMERICAN trade. it does not say other countries

By keeping its currency depressed in relation to the US dollar, China is keeping it depressed across the international market. Seriously, you shouldn't be talking about these kind of things if you don't know about economics. You can bitch and whine all you want about the disjoint between theory and reality, but that doesn't hide the fact that you aren't qualified to talk about this.