Have we all been suckered in by China?
While the US and Europe have been screwing the poorer countries by using agricultural incentives and other techniques to ensure others can’t compete in this, so called, free trade world of globalisation, China has been quietly taking us all for a ride.
Over the last few years China has welcomed overseas factories into their country and rigidly controlled its exchange rate to make its exports simply irresistible to the West. So where does that tactic leave China now? Well, let’s see.
• First they have state of the art, modern factories designed and funded by the West – but which are still 50% or more owned by the Chinese government.
• Second they have learnt from the manufacturing expertise that Western companies have introduced and then copied and duplicated many of their products.
• Third, they have taken the West’s cash in return for goods and then lent the money back to the West, effectively giving them the ability to bankrupt many Western economies, thus discouraging Western countries getting too heavy handed with them.
• Fourth, they are now in a position that, if they worked together with the governments of the Middle East – where, remember, all the oil is and who also have vast foreign reserves - they could potentially control the global economy.
• Fifth they can use their foreign reserves to manipulate smaller countries currencies and make even more money.
• And now, “China is stockpiling commodities such as copper and iron ore” according to the Royal Bank of Canada.
Damned cunning these Chinese. They have taken the West’s insane consumption fetish and drive for globalisation, linked it with corporate greed and the short term thinking of Western capitalism and quietly put themselves in a position to potentially dominate world trade and finance.
Is it me, or is it time for a bit of old fashioned protectionism in ‘our land of nature’s gifts’?

2 Comments:
I vote for the "protectionism" Keith.
27 May 2009 2:46 PM
My concern is that most of China is not 'The Government'. Most Chinese people live at a level well below Australian standards and protectionism will serve to keep them there. The reason they are able to produce goods at such a low cost is that wages are so low. Perhaps what they need is unionism, not protectionism. Like London at the turn of the century, when workers understand the discrepancy between their income and company profits they justifiably object and fight for better pay.
I'm also concerned that perhaps one of the factors that has contributed to a better standard of living for poorer people in Australia is the availability of cheap Chinese goods, particularly clothing. Protectionism would also disadvantage these people as they are required to disproportionately subsidise any cost increase (when you think of a cost increase as a percentage of total income rather than in raw dollar terms it's clear that protectionism hurts the poor to a greater extent.)
I'm not an economist so there might be some counter arguments that I'm unfamiliar with. I certainly hope so.
28 May 2009 9:36 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home