Anti-China Propaganda Orgy
The American news media is now fully in the grips of a bipartisan anti-China orgy of propaganda. The collusion between parties is far more complete than anything I’ve ever seen in American media. Every day, the crescendo gets worse. Today I saw “specials” running on three different channels purporting to cover the “crisis” of dangerous toys from China. “YOUR KIDS ARE NOT SAFE!” the headlines scream. The New York Times is running a Sunday special explaining how China is polluting the world at “epic proportions” and abusing human rights.
Don’t fall for it. The only thing of epic proportions here is hypocrisy. I cannot believe that watchdogs like GNN have not yet called shenanigans on the press. And it is especially ironic and saddening that this overt conspiracy of the economic hitmen is succeeding most successfully in duping those very people who claim to stand up to the global pillaging by multinationals.
Toys: something like 80% of the world’s toys are manufactured in China. If anything less than 80% of toy recalls originated in China, I would be mighty suspicious. But you have to wonder, why toys, and why now? The bulk of toys have come from China for many years now — are we to believe that suddenly all of them went bad at the same time? In fact, the reports don’t actually claim any change in the quality of toys from China. Most of the toys now in dispute have been sold in America for years. All that has changed is that AS OF TODAY, ALL THOSE TOYS YOU’VE BEEN BUYING FOR YEARS, ARE DEADLY!!!
Strangely, China seems to have been selectively shipping those deadly toys only to the U.S. Or the Europeans are as yet too stupid to panic. Since they are too stupid to realize the danger they are in, I recommend we send over U.S. military to liberate the Europeans from dangerous Chinese toys. It’s the least we can do for our white brothers across the pond.
Of course, white people are no longer having enough babies to replace the population, so the “YOUR KIDS ARE IN DANGER!” ploy is of limited use in stirring up jingoist passions against the Chinese. Thankfully, the same protective instincts kick in when you tell someone that “YOUR PET IS IN DANGER!” Now we find that the Chinese have secretly been poisoning all of America’s fluffy, adorable little Caucasian pets with some additive that we’ve never heard of before (one is reminded of Dr. Strangelove and the “body fluids”).
It’s no longer stuff that your kids and pets put in their mouths, though — it’s even the fish you buy at Walmart. Nobody does the math to figure out what percentage of Chinese-originated food fails inspection versus food from other ports. It is considered sufficient journalistic integrity to simply sound the klaxon, “A PIECE OF FOOD FROM CHINA DID NOT PASS INSPECTION!!”
We have known for decades that the American press thrives on scare-mongering based on stuff you put in your mouth. It’s only now that we realize it was all just practice for the day when we had a trade partner who provides more than 50% of our goods.
~
But the whole oral fixative complex is child’s play compared to the real game. The real game is about pollution and carbon credits. The popular media would have you believe that multinationals only outsource to China for cheap labor. But there is a far more important reason to outsource to China — it’s a different jurisdiction for pollution and carbon credits. Outsourcing based on displacement of energy consumption has accelerated in the past decade — I know several people in both the U.S. and China engaged in such projects for the government and multinationals.
The concept is simple. Let’s say that I manufacture plastics to sell to toy manufacturers, and this is a very energy-intensive process with many raw materials. Let’s say my manufacturing process produces a million tons of carbon per year. If I move the factory to China, and strike a deal with some local province to help them build the requisite energy production locally, I save on logistics costs (since the toy factories are in China now) and some production costs (due to kickbacks, and the fact that R&D is still partly government-funded). And the pollution stays in China.
And when all of our computers, monitors, and worn-out toys become toxic waste, we ship it back to China.
It’s a thing of beauty. All of the toys still go to kids in America, and all of the profit still flows to American companies. But now the pollution gets blamed on China. The civilized world can circle round China, like the self-righteous johns circling round the prostitute, and demand that she buy carbon credits to wash away her filth. Since we took all the profits to begin with, the only choice for China is to trade it off with debt. At a minimum, the carbon credits scam can be used to make sure that China’s overall position relative to the EU/US block is never too advantageous to her. The lunatic fringe of nationalists can applaud such a brilliant economic hitman ploy, if it were not for the fact that China’s threat to U.S. is already vastly overrated.
Especially in the case of the toy market, the hardline approach being taken by American toy companies is sickening and immoral. The Chinese companies were already completely uncoordinated; putting each other out of business in self-destructive price wars and commoditizing things which should be protected behind moats. Buying commodities from China is like stealing candy from babies. It was shameful exploitation to begin with. In the midst of this, the U.S. toy companies are now using threats, intimidation, and jingoism to get further concessions. The Chinese are already being exploited far beyond any morally acceptable point — whipping up the American population into an anti-China frenzy to get more concessions will only make things worse. As it is, at least two export-oriented officials in China have lost their lives in the past month, and undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of workers are facing harsher working conditions.
August 27th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
In general I agree with your sentiments that the fear mongering over toys is at the least, significantly out of proportion. I haven’t studied the issue far enough to say it’s baseless, chances are there are risks, and they’ve been blown up due to media motivation (fear sells), and a dose of anti-China sentiment.
One thing I’ll disagree with you on is that China’s threat to the United States is vastly overrated. China has made a great deal of economic progress and will continue to. While it has every right to this accomplishment, it does come with a degree of risk to the rest of the world.
On one hand, you have the environmental concerns, which are real regardless of how deplorable American standards of conduct are. The type of fear generated by the media won’t help these concerns as it stimulates desires to attempt to put the genie back in the bottle, an impossible task, as well as exceptionally selfish. Concern which encouraged the United States to realize the value in leading by example, being able to negotiate pollution controls from the moral high-ground (or at least less low) would be far more appropriate.
China’s economy and consumers appear to be emulating Americans more than any other model, so a better example could have far reaching impacts that don’t require threats, concessions or turning a blind eye to the problems unique to China.
Those problems are the second form of risk. China has made great progress and has recently been administered in a rational, if still overly firm manner. But the nature of the governmental process still carries great concern because there is little reason for confidence in its ability to prevent a future Mao, Stalin or other such undesirable from gaining control and replacing rationality with irrationality. With the new found economic power and derived powers this risk is quite grave.
As grave as it is, there’s little I can see to do about it. We hardly understand the government in any fashion that even if we wanted to we could reliably give it stabilizing support, or somehow block the rise of a irrational leader. Blind finagling is more likely to do harm than good. Military action before/after/ever is pretty much an insane thought.
At the moment our best hope appears to be to put faith that the people of China will in time use their new found relative economic prosperity to progressively, peacefully and orderly take control of their nation and safeguard its power from the clutches of an irrational leader forever.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
This is a wake-up call to the United States that we have exported our best technology and industrial base to China. We have lost control of our industrial power base, and there is no turning back. I think the media reaction is due to popular fear.
It is ironic that the United States takes such extreme measures to protect our children from the paint on a Barbie doll. What an obscure threat!
The real threat to our children is moral pollution. As the entertainment industry races to the bottom lowest common denominator with evil advertising programming, both children and adults are being brainwashed into pagan consumerism from the earliest age onward. Moral pollution is destroying the fabric of our civilization. The family, and mostly the children, suffer the real pain. http://www.fatherhood.org/father_factor.asp
History teaches that decadent society *does not last*. I cannot name even one decadent civilization that did not fall to a more moral society in short order. History also teaches that when the Christian church becomes weak, Islam will step in to fill the moral void. Are we really so stupid to believe that out degenerate immoral society will be able to withstand the conquest of a moral society beyond the next century?
Interestingly, China represents the best hope for the world. More than 10,000 Chinese people find Christ each day. After 50 years of persecution, perhaps China has the strongest church in all the world. China could become the brightest light of the Gospel in the future decades.
http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=6955
August 28th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Ryan: the Chinese built a wall around their country to keep people out. They have very little history of imperialism. It’s not in their blood, or in Confucian culture. The more time you spend around Chinese, the more the idea of expansionist China seems ridiculous.
We continue to establish military bases all around the Chinese border (Afghanistan, Iraq, Japan, Taiwan, etc.) We have them surrounded militarily. We are right to be afraid of cultures like ours, but China probably isn’t one.
August 28th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Honestas: I wish I could be so optimistic that ideaology will save the day. China is currently undergoing serious moral decay — the moral backbone for the past 50 years was Mao’s cultural revolution, and it was IMO the primary thing enabling China to be a superpower today. But China is quickly hurtling back toward a scenario where concubines, adultery, drug addiction, and gambling will be common. The central party has completely lost control of the morals.
By the same token, the central party does not tolerate political opposition. So the Christianity you cite is a state-controlled organization (you no doubt recall the Vatican excommunicating the Chinese bishops). One could argue that modern Catholics or Baptists are much akin to the church of Laodicia — simply “morally-themed social clubs”. And if the base argument is that “morally themed social clubs are good for society”, then it shouldn’t matter whether the social club is headed by Ted Haggard, Pope Ratzinger, or Chairman Mao. In fact, I believe that Mao proved that a lot of social good can (at least short-term) be accomplished by a purely atheist “morally themed social club”.
Basically, I am hesitant to throw my hopes behind any morally-themed social club based simply on the qualification that they claim to be “Christian”. The evangelists operating secretly in China, in opposition to the state-run church, are generally deeply tied to the American military-industrial complex; and in many cases are evangelizing “The American Way” instead of truth. We are tempted to place hopes in these various moral movements, since they promote American values (the cult of liberty and such) or they are religiously “less wrong than radical extremist Islam”. But I am not so sure. If you want to inculcate strict obedience to moral code in society, radical Islam is probably more effective. Christian nations tend to be debauchers.
As a thought experiment, imagine that China re-institutes an atheist cultural revolution, and the church in China is forced to go underground. Would that church compare favorably or unfavorably to Ted Haggard’s church? Would the relative % size of people claiming pulicly to be Christians reflect poorly on China, or broadcast a likely moral decay compared to the U.S.? I doubt it.
I think the mistake comes in when people start seeing religion as a tool that can be used to brainwash populations into righteousness. Every time that happens, religion becomes secularized and perverted.
August 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
The church in China is much like the church in ancient Rome. The underground churches are much like our puritan fathers were in Europe during the 1500’s. Persecuted churches are pure and very potent.
I’m not hoping that Chinese evangelists will be a tool to spread western values. I hope the opposite. Western values are pagan.
It is interesting to see that Christianity is spreading in the developing world, even as it declines in the western world. And it is interesting to see Islam spreading in places where Christianity declines. Suffering people appreciate the Gospel. Contented people dissipate. Dissipated people fall to Islam.
Now that the Gospel is in the hands of millions of Chinese (both state sanctioned and underground), it will not return empty. Europeans are longer needed, and the west is ripe for a fall. Even so, I am sure Chinese believers will be dilligent about spreading the Gospel to the rest of Asia.
The Gospel will be preached to the whole world, and then the end will come.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
I appreciate the general sentiment, I just think it’s too optimistic. The official Chinese church is nothing like the original Roman Church. It’s an even more corrupted and secular vehicle of political influence than the modern Roman Catholic church.
Anyway, here is what bothers me about the evangelical mainstream. Was it ever the aim of the original church to be an instrument of social reform? Is there anything in the writings of the fathers or apostles that says this? The more I read, the more I doubt this fundamental assumption. Furthermore, was there ever an expectation that “preaching to the whole world” would result in a significant percentage of the earth becoming more obedient? Most predictions seemed to be quite the opposite. The fathers promised persecution, increasing volatility, and increasing percentage of the population becoming more hardened and “always learning, never attaining”. This idea that there is a bright future where more and more people become Christian, and thus the world is a better place, seems utterly impossible to defend without completely twisting and perverting everything we know about the faith.
I realize
August 29th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
[...] in this climate of alarm over Chinese food contamination, it is interesting to note that Tang Hulu vendors often sprinkle a bit of sand in the candy coating [...]
September 1st, 2007 at 7:11 am
I suppose the wording of my first comment might suggest that I believe the Chinese world will become Christian. I am not so optimistic either.
I should have been more clear in this thread of conversation. The order of thought goes like this…
1) The U.S.A. freaks out about the paint on the toys that China exports, because it might hurt our children.
2) Meanwhile, we are hurting our children much worse by creating a culture that destroys the family. And, we are exporting that very same culture to China, via Western popular culture. It is tragic for the children.
3) The only good thing the U.S. has exported to China is the Gospel. Increasingly, 1/3 of the world has *access* or knowledge of the Gospel message. Some of the seeds that are planted will grow.
4) I think China is really the last part of the world that where the people were never fully exposed to the Gospel, geographically speaking. Personally, I believe that we can count on select Chinese believers to evangelize other obscure parts of Asia that Europeans have not been able to reach.
September 3rd, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Culture is a malleable force, and in a system where a smaller group have more or less absolute authority it’s restraints are minimalized.
Take Japan as an example. Japan was close to, or more isolationist than China for centuries, but I’m sure you’d agree that in the mid 20th century they conducted expansionist policies that China remains fearful and bitter about today.
The establishment of military bases is not in itself a hostile act. The United States has done nothing to indicate these bases are of offensive intent, and it is ridiculous to consider such a thing.
Despite my confidence in the purpose of those bases as defensive measures, I do understand the agitation they cause among Chinese people and leaders. What seems ridiculous to me, may seem only improbable but devastatingly dangerous to them.
The danger to world stability is that Chinese leaders might convince themselves they can remove this concern by attacking the nations these bases exist within. It’s improbable that Chinese leaders would so miscalculate the impact of such an action, but similarly dangerous, as the U.S. would most definitely feel compelled to defend those nations for numerous reasons.
There would be the humanitarian reasons relating to the breach of freedoms. There would be the security reasons relating to the loss of strategic posture and the fear of continued decline. There would also be the ever important concern of pride. While some of these reasons are good and some poor, the net result of them would compel the U.S. and probably European nations as well to react. Since this tendency is made rather obvious only a unreasonable act would precipitate it, but those do occur from time to time when the wrong people are accidentally given or allowed to take power.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Ryan, to be honest the Chinese government does not consider the U.S. to be a threat. They strongly consider Japan to be a threat. On the other hand, the U.S. government considers China to be a major threat (read the Pentagon Threat Assessments for the past 10 years). My point is that U.S. paranoia about China is utterly absurd.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
The “Word for Word” program on “China’s growing environmental challenges” (wordforword.publicradio.org) had Elizabeth Economy giving quite a few datum facts about the roles the world economy, and US corporations in general, have had in creating what is a pretty bad environmental situation in China.
IMHO. The issues that arise in growing economies around corruption, rule of law, environment, human rights, etc. are common TO ALL such systems. The US is not an exception to this reality and neither is China. It’s not clear that any system of government, demogogary, or social construct is able to prevent this other than ones that destroy growth. The so called “evil empires” aren’t so evil if you consider they are not able to consume much. Poverty enforced by destruction of human rights is the best way to save the planet. The problem with the Bush administration is not that they are being too imperialistic, its that they are not being enough. They have done the world a great service by decreasing oil supply, discouraging travel, undermining the US economy, and creating a prison society. Throw in a good world war or two and global warming, lead painted toys, and human rights will cease to be an issue for anyone.
September 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
GrantBL:
September 6th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
There’s no doubt that there is a fair bit of misplaced fear, stirred up and spontaneously created.
But I’d still disagree that it’s all incorrect. There is significant cause for caution, there is significant risk. More than anything people are scared of the wrong things, and biased toward action for the sake of action.
The most pointed example of this are thoughts that the U.S. must defeat China (economically, politically, whatever). That is a misplaced thought and not the mechanism by which to mitigate the risk. If anything, the question should be how to protect China from it’s potential instabilities.
September 7th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Ryan, nobody is more paranoid about potential instabilities that the central party in China. In this I agree with Honestas — there are big risks to China’s stability from: corruption, increasing inequality (rural land riots, for example), declining morals, rise of concubinism and infidelity, breakdown of family structure. You mentioned a couple of times the fear that “the wrong leader” could be put in place — I think that is B.S. perpetuated by the westerners who think they know best and should be able to select who the leaders of “third world” are. The biggest danger is a leader who allows unchecked moral decline, greed, and exploitation — and this is exactly what the west wants. Letting the west influence or dictate who the Chinese leader is would be an unmitigated disaster. It is unbelievably arrogant of westerners to imply that we should have a say.
September 9th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I wasn’t and never did suggest for a U.S. appointed leader. I agree that would be the wrong direction. The only time it is marginally acceptable is when it’s a replacement a leader who is already “wrong”. And when I say “a leader” I really mean that. The communist party is far from democracy (even the imperfect democracy of the U.S. or other nations), but it’s also far from dictatorship, and more importantly has been distancing itself from this more slowly but progressively.
What I meant to suggest is the importance of encouraging more checks and balances, of which greater individual rights are one. The purpose of such rights are not only about fairness and freedom, but are also about stability. Democracies do not last forever, but have a better track record than communism.
In all fairness, there isn’t enough historical record to fully judge. Almost all of the scary communist leaders emerged with the establishment of the state, I can’t at the moment think of one who gained power years later, but there are also only a few states which have made it past their initial leader. Cuba is still on the first, Korea is effectively the same (son vs. father). The Soviet Union, China and Vietnam have, but the Soviet Union didn’t last, and Vietnam and China have little more than 30 years post-Ho/Mao.
If you asked me to rate the most frightening leaders of the 20th century, I would start with Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, Saddam Hussein. There are others who’d deserve a place on this list if they ruled more powerful countries. I also omit Osama bin Laden as it’s less the individual, and more the group he’s representative of that are frightening.
September 9th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Ryan, I understand your point, I just think it’s *highly* speculative. To your list of “dangerous” leaders, you could add George W. Bush, who seems to like to bomb other countries while praising the cult of liberty. The U.S. has put armed troops in hundreds of countries, assassainated leaders, and meddled ferociously. This has been going on for at least 100 years, during the peak of “individual rights” in the U.S. The U.S. was created by colonial powers who had 1500+ years history of imperialism. China has a 3000 year history with no imperialism.
This isn’t America-bashing — it’s a lesson in perspective that the neocons need to figure out. I am not sure what is so hard to understand about it. I’ll explain it in 3 easy steps:
1) China is a nation that historically doesn’t want to expand, and simply wants to be left alone. They have been repeatedly been subjugated by island people.
2) America, like Japan, comes from genetic stock of imperialistic island people. America has been continually involved in foreign wars since inception. America’s modus operandi is to cite “human rights” or “individual liberties” before bombing another country.
3) People in America (like you) start talking about the need to “influence” and promote human rights and liberty in China
What do you not understand about this? Yes, America has great protection for individual liberties *here*. That translates into “bomb people over there, so we don’t have to reduce liberties here”. That translates into “fight there instead of here”. We prefer the slavery in China so we can enjoy the liberty here. Classic island people policies. China is not island people.
September 10th, 2007 at 6:37 pm
A comparison of George W. Bush to any of those leaders is a mistake which I can only attribute to emotionalism of the present day. The central issue, Iraq, is incomparable. 5 to 10 million Russians died in the famine of 1932-1933, 3-5 million were killed executed or died in the Gulag.
Since the invasion of Iraq, 80,000 civilians have died from violence, including crime. Around 25,000 of that is crime. I wasn’t able to find any statistics on the crime rate during Saddam’s time, but he did kill around 180,000 kurds in 3 years in what you could describe as internal conflict at best and genocide at worst.
Deaths in Saddam’s Iraq were much more neat and tidy than in current day Iraq. They did not happen in downtown Baghdad in front of news cameras. Instead they happened in remote sections of Iraq were entire villages were wiped out and no one left to tell the tale.
The blame to attribute to the Bush administration is not that they did something about Iraq, it would be that they did the wrong something. Perhaps international efforts could have prevailed in either reforming or replacing Saddam. Perhaps an internal revolution would have happened which by some miracle would have had less than 100,000 casualties but at the least ended with a government with enough support among it’s people that sectarian strife or terrorists would not be able to engage in the activities they do today.
It’s all a bunch of what-ifs, and unlike the leaders that truly belong on that list, you won’t have to think about George W. Bush in another year when he steps out of office. I don’t mean to sound as if I’m defending Bush, but the comparison is wrong.
As far as China goes, you seem to have forgotten that it was the Chinese “Empire”. China was not always whole. Different states within China engaged in imperialistic conquest over weaker Chinese states. At times all of China was united like Europe was under Roman rule, and at times it wasn’t. China conquered Mongolia, Thailand and a little island at different times. If you believe that a nation as large was China unified out of collective good will and chose an Emperor, you’re mistaken.
September 11th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Ryan, I’m sure I know FAR more about Chinese history than you do. What you are doing is citing *internal* matters. Civil wars between ethnic Chinese people during the warring states period, famine, mismanagement, etc.
All tragedies, no doubt, but this is not morally equivalent to invading a sovereign nation or subjugating cultures halfway around the world. It is pretty twisted to even suggest so.
We have our own internal matters, like Katrina. Or the fact that we keep a far higher percentage of our minority population incarcerated in prison than any other nation, including China. This is a massive human rights issue.
I’m not trying to take sides here, just trying to help you see past the propaganda.
The west has a long history of being internally peaceful while exploiting people of other races externally. China has a long history of exploiting people internally while being peaceful with people of other races externally. That’s a fact supported by 1000+ years of hisory.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
I suspect you do know Chinese history in much more detail. What I wonder is whether your looking at facts from a perspective that keeps you from seeing what those details mean.
How is the Han Chinese conquering the Manchu Chinese different than the Romans conquering the Greek, the Gauls or the Celts. Were there not separate states within China proper or greater China at times throughout history?
A similar mistake is often made in the U.S. by classifying the westward expansion of the U.S. in a much different light than European colonization.
They are all examples of forced expansion of the national or imperial domain and the only thing you’re argument has going for it is that China never subjugated Japan or India.
Perhaps you’re original argument of using geography to explain this might be more appropriate, than to assume it’s an intrinsic element of the personality of the people which would not be subject to changes technology, economy and political changes can bring about.
September 12th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
OK, we are more on the same page now. We agree about geography being one of the biggest influences on expansionism. I think people underestimate the influence of culture, though, too.
Western culture developed hand-in-hand with expansionism. It’s ingrained into everything we teach our children, do, and think. By contrast, China had only one famous explorer, who built a ship and sailed out to sea, only to come home in a hurry after discovering nothing. His boat is on display in Nanjing now; a national treasure.
This point is very hard to understand until you get to know many Chinese people and realize what a huge impact Confucian culture has on every Chinese person’s thinking (much like Thomas Jefferson’s impact on Americans’ thinking). You can read Tom Doctoroff’s excellent book, “Billions” to get an understanding. He is the first western author who confirmed my own observations and insights about how Chinese people think. Chinese culture is extremely inward-looking; very protective and “gathering in”, and competitive only with other people to get the next social rung.
Culture doesn’t change overnight. Even Mao’s “cultural revolution” was a throwback to legalism that predated Confucius, and failed to alter the fundamental Confucian nature of Chinese culture. Furthermore, Chinese people are not slavish subjects of a dictatorship — they have always seen government as being “at the will of the people”, since long before Jefferson. Until Chinese culture changes substantially, it will not be possible for China to have a leader who is not fundamentally Confucian.
Thus I think the biggest risk of expansionist China would be in Americanization of Chinese culture, and in moral decline that weakns the strength of Confucian family bonds.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
[...] month, I told you that American media was complicit in an immoral propaganda campaign against China, and expressed alarm at how gullible the American public has become. Now that two Chinese [...]
November 8th, 2007 at 6:18 am
I agree with you to the utmost degree. It’s disgraceful the way in which the U.S. government and specifically the media has been carrying out their propaganda campaign against chinese-made products, and not only their toys.
I quickly realized months ago that the U.S. was doing this in such a manner as to decrease the large trade-imbalance that we have with China.
This is a fear campaign and in a broad sense, a non-tarrif barrier against a developing economy. I agree with the previous sentiment with how gullible to U.S. people are in believing that chinese made products are toxic and will kill our children.
I thought it was a good observation by honestas in which it was stated that we have moved the industrial/manufacturing base, which we previously had a monopoly over, to other countries such as China. Now countries in Asia are more capable than the U.S. to assemble hi-tech goods, which are cheaper, and more technologically advanced. Notice that U.S. economic expanision is diminishing, and we are experiencing the an ever increasing trade imbalance with the rest of the world. Scaring U.S. consumers won’t help the country, and it is a sign of a society that have lost it’s economic prowness.
What the U.S. consumer doesn’t realize that a stronger Chinese economy helps our economy as well. The ability for Chinese to improve their economic conditions, makes them more prone to import U.S. made goods.
In a country in which the majority of the population earns $10 a day or even less, how can we expect them to purchase a large quantity of goods from the U.S.? It’s almost ridiculous to believe that the chinese consumer can import the same amount of goods from the U.S. that we do from them.