China Will Soon be World's Biggest Exporter

[buzzsaw_23]

China will soon be world's biggest exporter

Larry Elliott, economics editor and Jonathan Watts in Beijing
Saturday September 17, 2005
The Guardian

China's explosive rise to economic superpower status was confirmed yesterday by the west's leading thinktank in a new report predicting that it would leapfrog the United States and Germany within five years to become the world's biggest exporter.

Despite growing social strains and international concerns, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said there would be no let-up in China's breakneck growth.

China is not a member of the OECD - a group of the world's richest developed nations - but the Paris-based organisation published its first report yesterday on a country that has been transformed within a quarter of a century from struggling peasant economy to industrial titan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1572249,00.html

[CHIMO]

1. Already

Made Canada #2.

China beats out Canada as top exporter to U.S.

Canada can no longer call itself the world's No. 1 seller of goods to the United States.

China has edged out Canada for the first time, taking top spot in exports to the United States in July, according to international trade data released this week.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050915/REXPORT15/TPNational/?query=china+exports

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Notice that Ad about herpes, I guess even Buddha gets industrial disease

[Maple]

3. What??

[orpupilofnature57]

8. the ad attached to the intended one , I was pointing out by-product

of industrialization.

[Maple]

14. It's a British paper

and herpes has nothing to do with industry

[Robert Oak]

4. What's disgusting about this is

That's our economy they now have. The "free trade" agreement called the China PNTR reads like a complete "giveaway" by the United States..
it even includes giving China US manufacturing technology.

It's incredible. It's like our government (and sorry people Clinton was in office and pushed this one) just had no problems "buying the brooklyn bridge" and selling the American people down the river.

And even better...ya know that mythical 1.3B consumers that are going to buy "American products"...not even, they are still in a very repressive society, most wages are slave labor and can't afford even meat and if they ever do eventually raise up a true middle class..
guess what, those people will buy Chinese goods since China will be the manufacturing center.

All I can say is I hope the pay off to push that turkey was real big...because if any of these idiots who pushed this agreement actually believed their own rhetoric, well, that's even more frightening.

[Maple]

5. Nothing disgusting about it

and the US didn't have 'dibs' on any economy.

Used to the easy life eh? Didn't think anyone else would ever catch up after WWII?

Btw...China invented rockets and paper and oil wells and calculators and cannon....do you think they need your help?

Further btw...China has millionaires and billionaires and an enormous middle class with home theaters and computers and cell phones...

[orpupilofnature57]

9. The word for it is Occidental.

[Maple]

11. That just means western

It doesn't guarantee prosperity, and certainly not in perpetuity

[barb162]

41. Maybe when your job and those of your friends and family

go to Asia you'll be thinking a bit differently about it. Then again, maybe not.

[cire4]

7. "can't afford even meat"

You must be thinking of North Korea...

While rural poverty still exists, many cities in China have living standards that are comparable to those of Japan. Say what you will about free trade and globalization, but it has been very good to the Chinese economy and the vast majority of the Chinese people.

[Robert Oak]

12. clueless

It would be so nice when people make claims that they were actually true.


Here's a google on keyword "China slave labor".

Well documented, known.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=China+slave+labor&btnG=Google+Search

I can only pray that those who think we should give away America that they are 1st in line to do this personally, and like everyone else, by the forces that have hit 3M other Americans...may they lose their house, lose their health insurance and income. I pray I can stop by them, now homeless in the street and point out their amazing world view morality.

[cire4]

13. Here are some links for ya.....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-11-11-middleclass-usat_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3732914.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3582015.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1345824,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1509375,00.html

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/01/10/poll_incomes_up_in_urban_china?mode=PF

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/DI18Ad04.html

Enjoy! :-)

[Robert Oak]

15. look at the overall stats

those are the exceptions. There is no "1.3B" middle class in China.

[Maple]

16. That's total population

not middle class

[Robert Oak]

17. read the statistics

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,1264917,00.html

http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp1452.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/bwi-wto/wto/2005/0221china.htm

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/news/files/china/urban-poverty.asp

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2004/12/pdf/ravallio.pdf

It always helps while spreading your opinion to actually examine the facts.

[Maple]

18. I know the statistics

I work with them.

1,306,313,812 is the total population as of July 2005

[cire4]

19. And those links prove....

that poverty exists in China?

Of course, poverty exists in China. It was acknowledged in my first post. Poverty exists in every country in the world. Nobody is denying that China still has to tackle the disparity between urban and rural standards of living.

What I take exception to is this image of China where there's a repressive, 3rd world standard of living, where there's no middle class and the people are all poor slave-laborers with no purchasing power and can't afford to eat meat for dinner. That description of the Middle Kingdom would be more apt 30-40 years when Mao was running things and the Cultural Revolution was spiraling out of control.

In today's China, where you can find the highways littered with traffic jams of shiny new cars, where the streets are filled with people yapping on cell phones, where it seems like a new skyskraper is built everyday, where the McDonalds, Pizza Hut, and KFC restaurants are jam packed with Chinese gorging themselves on terrible overpriced food, even the poorest of the poor have a better standard of livings than they did prior to the country opening up to foreign investment.

China is modelling itself after South Korea and Taiwan. Both of those countries were poor and rural like China was. Each of their dictatorial governments created export-based economies, where the goods they made were to be primarily sold in the world market. 40 years later, each country had democratized and had a standard of living that was roughly equal to that of the West.

The same will happen to China. Just give it time and let it grow.

[Robert Oak]

20. sorry that's ridiculous

You cannot let it grow at the expense of the US economy, which is what is happening. If you believe that then maybe you should give up your job, your bank account, your retirement and your house personally
to help the Chinese people as you claim (which it is not!).

You cannot let a totalitarian regime grow at the expense of human rights.

you cannot let a world military power with such a totalitarian regime grow.

And they are slave laborers in China as I previously pointed out.

If you read the articles it's quite clear who is cashing in, party members and corrupt individuals.

I just sent over 10 articles, one from the IMF proving that the std. of living is NOT better for the majority of people

I find this absurd when people ignore history, are naive on world domination by totalitarian regimes and especially those who ignore
statistics on the truth of the situation.

A press release documentary or press release news clips is not statistics and the facts.

[Maple]

21. Goodness no, you can't let THEM get ahead

keep em in communism and poor...that's the ticket.

Why should they have a chance at a decent life eh?

[cire4]

47. Not ridiculous at all....

You cannot let a totalitarian regime grow at the expense of human rights.

But I suppose it was ok to let the totalitarian regimes in South Korea and Taiwan grow throughout the 50s, 60s, and 70s...eh?

you cannot let a world military power with such a totalitarian regime grow.

You let that "world military power" grow and the totalitarian regime disappears. More growth, more middle class, more education, more leisure time, more income, more opportunities to travel to other parts of the world....goodbye communist party.

China will have some form of representative government in 20 years. The prevailing belief among the Chinese people is that democracy will come only after economic reform. Every generation of Communist party leaders has become more liberal and more reform-oriented than the previous. And with the young generation of today being more liberal and Westernized than ever, that trend is going to do nothing but continue.

And they are slave laborers in China as I previously pointed out.

You pointed it out...but you didn't establish it.

If you read the articles it's quite clear who is cashing in, party members and corrupt individuals.

There sure are alot of party members and corrupt individuals in China then.

I just sent over 10 articles, one from the IMF proving that the std. of living is NOT better for the majority of people

The IMF article showed that inequality has been rising since 1999 and is an area of concern in China. It made no claims about standard of living pre-1980 and post 1980.

And the inequality in China isn't much different than that of the United States:

United States 40.8
China 43.4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

It is also important to note that Taiwan and South Korea endured terrible problems of inequality during their periods of transition. But powerful middle classes and Western living standards still arose. Turning a poor, 3rd world country into a 1st world country with a strong middle class doesn't happen overnight. The middle class in China has been getting bigger every year and it will continue to do so. You just have to give it time and let its economy grow.

I find this absurd when people ignore history, are naive on world domination by totalitarian regimes and especially those who ignore
statistics on the truth of the situation.

Whose ignoring hisotry? China has never ever, in its 3000+ year history, shown even the slightest inclination or intention of imperialism. China was also a superpower (with totalitarian regimes, I might add) multiple times and had armies that were more than capable of marching across the globe and conquering everything in their paths. The Chinese people get a great deal of their patriotism from the fact that their country has always been peaceful and has always been defensive -driving out everybody from the Mongols to the Japanese. Throughout history, their only foreign policy goal has been to maintain the borders of the original Chi'in State, which is why they are so obsessed about Taiwan and Tibet.

[barb162]

72. "Chinese imperialism"

"Chinese imperialism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
snip

Throughout its history, Chinese territory would vary depending on the changing fortunes of successive dynasties, alternating between periods of Chinese expansion and foreign invasion or rule.

In ancient Chinese political theory, relations between foreign states were governed by the tributary system. Since the Chinese emperor held the Mandate of Heaven, his rule was universal and extended to all under heaven. Sometimes neighboring states were actual protectorates or vassal states over which China exerted large amounts of influence, while in other cases foreign states merely acknowledged China's nominal suzerainty in to gain access to Chinese trade, which took place through the tributary system.

Throughout the history of China, Chinese civilization expanded outwards in all directions from the area around the Yellow River, but especially towards the south. Several historical migrations, driven by war, natural disasters, foreign invasions, and/or population pressures, led to Han Chinese migration and settlement of new territories to the south, assimilating or displacing local peoples. The areas currently known as Vietnam and Burma were tributary states of China until the late 19th century when much of Indo-China was colonized by the French. By this time their "tributary" status was purely nominal and brought enough benefits that it was voluntary. In contrast, the north was largely a frontier inhabited by militaristic steppe peoples, and protected by the Great Wall. Chinese states often engaged in military campaigns in the north, but rarely established lasting control.

China's last major period of territorial expansion was under the militaristic Qing Dynasty, whose rulers were not ethnically Han Chinese but Manchu. Their martial skills, non-Han origin and technological advantages allowed them to expand their territory in Mongolia, Central Asia, Tibet, and Taiwan. However in the 19th and early 20th century the Qing would themselves succumb to to the militarily superior European powers engaging in imperialism in Asia, leading to a final collapse in 1911. During this period, China lost parts of its empire including Hong Kong, Macao, Korea, Taiwan, Indochina, and land in the northeast.

The Republic of China, which succeeded the Chinese empire in 1912, and the People's Republic of China (established 1949) have since attempted, with varying degrees of success, to re-incorporate some areas that fell outside of Chinese control before and during the collapse of the Qing dynasty. The People's Republic of China's control over Tibet, Xinjiang, and Inner Mongolia, which contain large non-Han populations, is seen by locals and some outsiders as modern-day imperialism, as are subsequent organized campaigns of Han Chinese immigration into these regions. This is labelled as an act of demographic swamping aimed at destroying the distinctness of those regions by critics, but defended as the innocuous, routine and benevolent importing of labourers and professionals into sparsely populated and poorly developed regions by supporters. Finally, the PRC's territorial claim over Taiwan, which is still controlled by the Republic of China, is also seen as an example of imperialism by critics. In all these cases supporters consider China's policy to be that of defending the PRC's right to succeed the ROC as well as defend the territorial integrity of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_imperialism

Of course, an extremely short discourse on an extremely long subject, but the comment that China wasn't imperialistic over 3000 years is way over stating the case.

[cire4]

81. It really depends on what definition of "imperialism"

you want to work with...

If migration to surrounding lands counts as imperialism (as the article seems to imply), then pretty much every country in the world has an extensive history of imperialism.

I personally wouldn't consider the migration of ethnic Han Chinese from the Yellow River Valley outward as imperialism.

I'll concede that the closest China ever came to imperialist practices was during the aggressive Qing Dynasty. But during the Qing Dynasty, China wasn't even ruled by the Chinese. They were ruled by the Manchus. And even still, their rule in Tibet, Taiwan, and Inner Mongolia was pretty much "In Name Only, as local prefectures still governed over the national government.

As for today? The main reason China wants Taiwan and wants to hold onto Tibet is that they were both parts of the previous Chinese state. Therefore, it differs sharply from European imperialism which primarily expanded for natural resources.

But then again, my personal belief is that Chinese Communists really don't care about Taiwan and just use the issue to drum up nationalist support for their increasingly illegitimate government. The same way Bush uses OBL to drum up American nationalist support...

But that can be debated in a different time on a different thread...:)

[Kenergy]

6. Yes, China will be the worlds superpower...

we will be a third world country like Mexico...Thanks Republicans!

[Amonester]

10. As long as taxpayers will pay the bills of the mightiest military on

Earth without caring about (or knowing about, as in "being correctly informed by the Corporate Medias...") getting ripped-off by the PNAC (a surrogate for Big Oil) day-in, day-out, week-in, week-out, month-in, month-out, and year-in, year-out....

A New Revolution's "Second Coming" is needed (soon)!

[Psephos]

22. Economics is not a zero sum game

Just because China grows does not mean that we shrink or stagnate. There are other factors involved. Those who try to reduce this to a "they win, we lose" proposition should read a few basic books on macroeconomics before spouting.

World GDP has been increasing steadily for centuries. Wealth is not transferred; it is created, by human labor and effort.

Peace.

[Robert Oak]

26. in this case it is

While it could not be a zero sum game, this one is. Wealth is being transferred due to the constant offshoring of US human labor and effort.

And there are many incidents in history of countries with huge GNP's eroding into chaos at the benefit of another nation. From the Roman empire to the Netherlands to Spain to England.

For further edification maybe you could visit our site and read about international trade theory and how it is not implemented correctly in the current trade policy, nor is there a global economic model that is accurate to date. Gomory is as close as it gets.

[Vinca]

23. The U.S. will be getting what it deserves. Our leaders were gungho

for trade agreements that the average American could clearly see were ruinous. Now, should you decide to shop for anything, you're hard pressed to find an item "Made In the U.S.A." If we're not making it, we're not making a living.

[Robert Oak]

24. exactly, it's not "raising up" it's "bringing down"

If one examines the "free trade" agreements one will see they are not free trade at all, but more for multinational corporations to obtain cheap labor and in the case of the China PNTR honestly I think "what were you smokin'" when I read it, the multinationals are giving away their manufacturing technology, their intellectual property, part of the ownership of the enterprise. So beyond their desire for slave labor,
it just doesn't add up economically long term.

Anyway, the whole "do good" on a global scale is not what is happening..it's keeping most people globally repressed and also
ruining the US economy.

This is why those people were rioting in Seattle in 1999 and why Ralph Nader and others were/are speaking out...if one noticed every labor group from almost every nation was protesting in Seattle..

This isn't about creating wealth in the 3rd world for the majority, it's more exploitation on a global scale only this time, the US middle class is getting to be exploited also.

[Maple]

25. Baloney

any way you slice it

[Robert Oak]

27. as usual Maple

Your amazing references to statistics and economic empirical results
is fascinating as you follow me around with retorts attempting not to get your posts deleted.

I'm sure Harvard would accept a treatise titled "baloney".

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

29. Why can't you cope?

Your grandparents could.

Cars weren't invented in America, but Americans soon adapted to them.

What would have happened if the blacksmiths and horse stable owners and buggy whip makers had insisted the US ban cars? And the govt did it?

Where would America be now?

[barb162]

36. It is not baloney. What he's saying is completely factual

The US has been giving away its jobs, technology, manufacturing and even research to China and India and elsewhere for several years now. People in Asia and elsewhere are benefitting and the USA is turning into a nation of many poor and few rich. It is proven statistically and economically. Take a look at the FED, US Dept. of Labor statistics, etc. The data over the last few years is absolutely indisputable.

[Maple]

37. I'm afraid not

You aren't giving away anything.

Nor does the data show that.

The world is simply changing, and like generations before you, you'll have to adapt to the new conditions...because the world isn't going to stop and wait for you.

[barb162]

39. Are you denying the jobless, etc., data

such as 400,000 tech jobs have gone to Asia the last few years.

Oh, the world is changing all right.

[Maple]

43. Well Bill Gates

is looking for technical people, and can't find any in the US.

I have no idea what you're defining as technical...but Gates isn't the only one who's having trouble finding any.

[barb162]

45. He probably already has 10,000 resumes per opening

the day after the job openings were announced

[Maple]

49. No he is having to search overseas

for qualified people, as are many other companies. And it costs them a fortune to bring people over

They are constantly lobbying to allow more qualified people into the country, because they need so many of them

[barb162]

51. OLD, dirty game by employers. Lay off Americans, hire H-IB visa

Yep, lay off qualified workers / US citizens, say you can't find anyone qualified and then say you need foreign workers (at 20% of the salary of the citizens just laid off.)

"The H-1B visa program was started under the guise that there was a shortage of qualified Americans to fill jobs, primarily in the high tech sector many years ago. Today claiming there is a shortage of Americans to perform these jobs is nothing short of a sick joke.
Note that Microsoft is quoted in this article as stating that they can not find enough Americans to fill jobs. However Microsoft, does in fact - do layoffs of Americans despite their public claims to the contrary. Some examples from various news reports:

The San Jose Mercury News first reported the layoffs within Microsoft TV on Tuesday. Microsoft representatives confirmed the layoffs Wednesday and added that they were part of a larger restructuring within the group. The company also confirmed on Wednesday the UltimateTV layoffs, which the Wall Street Journal had reported earlier in the day."
snip



http://spofga.org/immigration/2005/may/h1b_visas_expanded.php

[Maple]

52. I'm sorry, but there's nobody qualified

Making circuit boards, or programming is not advanced IT work

[barb162]

55. There's thousands of people in the US with

advanced degrees and years of high level design experience who are laid off from HP, IBM, Tellabs, Lucent.... and their jobs have been offshored or replaced by foreign workers. Deny reality all you want; reality is still there.

[Maple]

56. Really?

I think this is fantasy.

A labor shortage in fact

[barb162]

60. Do you have anything , like labor data ,to back that up?

Other than lines by Bill Gates and other super rich corp. honchos who want to hire cheap labor.

[Maple]

61. Your labor data is years behind

but you can read this if you like.

"Catherine Mann of the Institute for International Economics points out that the widely quoted number of half a million for IT jobs “lost” to India in the past couple of years takes as its starting point the year 2001, the top of the industry's cycle. Most of the subsequent job losses were due to the recession in the industry rather than to an exodus to India. Measured from 1999 to 2003, the number of IT-related white-collar jobs in America has risen (see chart 6).

Ms Mann thinks that demand will continue to grow as falling prices help to spread IT more widely through the economy, and as American companies demand more tailored software and services. Azim Premji, the boss of Wipro, is currently trying to expand his business in America. “IT professionals are in short supply in America,” says Mr Premji. “Within the next few months, we will have a labour shortage.”"

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3351468

[barb162]

62. Wrong, the data here goes through 2004

Take a look at charts 5, 11 ands 12 for starters and you'll see jobs are being shipped to Asia; unemployment has increased here...Gates can find plenty of Americans to hire if in fact that billionaire POS wanted to hire Americans.



http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguide_offshoring_faq

[Maple]

63. Not a govt site

"The Institute stresses real world analysis and a concern for the living standards of working people"

"EPI was established in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers"

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/about

A labor site. Hardly unbiased.

And of course some jobs are going to Asia...however high tech, IT people, are still in short supply in the US.

Perhaps you're defining high tech as circuit board manufacturing or programming.

[barb162]

66. The charts show categories of labor

I trust this "labor site" as you term it, as being accurate. Also industry publications are saying the same thing. As I mentioned before, there are hundreds of thousands of well educated people with years of heavy experience out of work while companies are offshoring , etc., their ex-jobs. It's also happened in manufacturing for years. Millions of blue collar workers have long lost their jobs as they were transferred offshore. You can deny the data all day long, but reality is still there. You're not convincing me of anything. And I don't know what makes that site you mentioned, Institute for International Economics, the be-all of anything. Who finances it? The big corporate outsourcers? Buddies of Bush?

[Maple]

67. The 'charts' are from a biased labor site

And their 'results' show it.

Not credible. Sorry

[barb162]

69. Neither is yours, and I am not sorry

[Maple]

70. I didn't post any urls

from an official chart. Sorry.

[barb162]

73. All you posted was an article implying " NO PROBLEMA "

for American workers from one end to the other. Actually , without looking at it again, I believe your article had one chart that took some data up to 2003 trying to blame everything on recession versus outsourcing, which is ridiculous on the face of it. According to the Bush administration, there's been no recession except for a tiny dip after 9-11.

[Maple]

74. The one from the Economist??

Look it up...it's a publication on economics....serious stuff.

Not propaganda and political hype

http://www.economist.com/

[barb162]

77. I am quite familiar with the Economist and I consider it a

good rag. That doesn't mean it can't have a bunch of boners in it every now and then. But the article you cited had IMO horseshit data that tracks with NOTHING that is going on in this economy the last few years.

[Maple]

78. That doesn't surprise me

However it's well respected around the world, and read by all world leaders.

All of whom have much more awareness of, and input into the world economy than you do.

[barb162]

79. Do you know my education and work background?

Would you tell me what you think it is?

[Maple]

80. No, nor do I care

I repeat...why can't you cope?

Your grandparents could.

Cars weren't invented in America, but Americans soon adapted to them.

What would have happened if the blacksmiths and horse stable owners and buggy whip makers had insisted the US ban cars? And the govt did it?

Where would America be now?

[barb162]

82. Cope?

Look, don't tell me about my level of awareness or coping skills.

[Maple]

83. I repeat: why can't you cope?

Everyone else has.

[barb162]

85. repeat that line to yourself.

[Maple]

86. I'm coping just fine

Your problems are of your own making

[entanglement]

54. Ask yourself a question: Would BushCo and cronies,

who don't care for *Americans*, really be benign enough to 'give away' anything to Third-World countries?

[barb162]

48. It's pretty much a disaster for workers in this and several

other countries. It's a goldmine for corporations

[jpgray]

30. The price they pay is lousy working conditions and shitty living standards

Not for the rich city dwellers, but for the unskilled workers. Think Packingtown, 1905 for much of China's manufacturing base: a massive pool of labor that can be indescriminately ruined by employers since a near limitless number of fresh stock are waiting to take their places, and an astronomically large amount of money from the US and Europe is ready to corrupt and bribe officials to keep laborers in squalor and economic slavery, and above all to keep costs down--it's an investor's and rich man's paradise and an impoverished, unskilled worker's nightmare. The latter can be worked until broken and then cast aside, whereas the former can get richer and richer by maintaining that set of conditions. This investor pork barrel brand of free trade we have going on now has resulted in increased polarization between rich and poor nations--it hasn't narrowed the gap at all, as it was ostensibly supposed to do, but it has widened it. In a few decades I suppose Chinese workers will insist on more labor and human rights, and then the money will all rush to the next cheap labor zone to beat its people into the dirt for a time, making billions all the while.

[Maple]

31. Yes, and they've been upgrading for some time

Same as Americans did.

[jpgray]

32. Well, rather than have decades of pain and suffering

It would be nice if we could impose some -actual- international labor rights and practices via the UN, and enforce them with severe sanctions and tariffs to discourage the basest exploitations when it comes to laborers. This would force nations and international business to assign value to human rights and happiness, whereas now the only thing that goes into their calculations is potential profit. This would slow down the economic growth of China, but they would still be able to grow and the shock of the transfer of wealth wouldn't be as severe here or in other richer industrialized countries. Also the motive for the worst exploitations in third-world countries would be lessened. This will never happen, but as I said, it would be nice.

[Maple]

33. They have to come to it themselves

Any foreign country 'imposing' things on America wouldn't have worked either.

[jpgray]

34. We're already imposing on them

Our business elite is funneling billions and billions of dollars to -maintain- cheap labor and low costs, and cheap labor and low costs always mean a crap standard of living, and terrifying working conditions. I'm not sure why you think using our influence to maintain something horrific is somehow okay, while using our influence to lessen that horror is something bad and unnatural?

And the US certainly was imposed upon by the wealth of foreign nations--in our pre-industrial period Britain especially had a huge impact on the economic society of the South.

[Maple]

35. Getting rich is hardly an imposition

It's provided jobs for thousands who didn't have one

And far from being horrific, China is booming. They have a huge middle class now.

Foreign countries had nothing to do with improving American working conditions.

[jpgray]

38. But who exactly is getting rich?

As in America's industrial boom, it provides jobs for a poor, naive rural population that looks to the cities for wealth. This group is exploited heavily for the wealth of others. The thirteen year old girl that made the shirt you're wearing isn't attending hip parties in the trendy quarter of the city, or yakking aimlessly on a cell phone. She's working every hour of her life just to survive, with no amenities. And as for this:

Foreign countries had nothing to do with improving American working conditions.

You've conveniently forgotten the point you made earlier--that America would accept no foreign imposition on their economic society:

Any foreign country 'imposing' things on America wouldn't have worked either.

Only someone who is very ignorant of history or economics would make that argument--European wealth has heavily influenced America, especially in its industrial infancy. What sort of capital helped to maintain slavery in the South? Do you suppose only Northern money was funneled there to maintain the status quo? Britain had a huge investment in the slave labor of blacks, and thereby had a massive influence on the South's economic makeup. As for the more easily defensible position you've retreated to, foreign countries had much to do in terms of past examples and influence, but in terms of capital the influence was all the other way--to maintain low costs, no matter the suffering brought about by such behavior.

Again, could you explain why economic imposition that does direct harm is fine, but economic imposition to promote labor standards and human rights should be feared and despised? You haven't really answered that question.

[Maple]

40. A goodly number of the Chinese are

China's growth has been phenomenol, and in a very short time. They have a huge middle class now...cell phones, home theaters, the works....even millionaires, and a couple of billionaires.

Foreign countries did nothing whatever to improve American working conditons...nor would Americans have accepted any such imposition.

Nor did they support slavery in your south. Britain in fact banned slavery.

I don't know what history books you've been reading, but no reputable ones would support such as position.

You are not harming China...and they're not interested in your 'help' of imposition.

It's not your country for one thing.

[jpgray]

42. Who supplied British factories with cotton? Magic textile gnomes?

Again, where is the social mobility in China? More money exists, but who is getting it? Do unskilled workers there earn enough to save for a better future, or are they just surviving--are they discarded to beg or starve after being lamed or otherwise made unable to work? And again, why only use our economic clout to maintain deplorable conditions? Because we are assuredly doing that. Why not use it to curb these nasty practices? Is it worth the suffering of millions to boost the wealth of a small percentage of Chinese in a short period?

That you avoid all these questions points to the weaknesses of your argument. That you provide no facts about this blossoming Chinese middle class is even more indicative--3/4 of China's population (a fact for you) is rural, and poor. Focusing on a few street corners in Beijing really doesn't reveal much about the country.

[Maple]

44. Excuse me, but I'm not avoiding any questions

If I'm not answering them fast enough for you, you could simply look it up.

http://english.people.com.cn/200509/03/eng20050903_206346.html

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=251268&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/

China is actually facing a labor shortage in many fields.

[jpgray]

46. And on the other side of things...

Here's an indication of how this rapid, breakneck shift of wealth can cause an uneven distribution of wealth and increased suffering. It's true that this flow of wealth will bring everyone's standard of living up over time, but in my view with some international regulation it could be accomplished with less suffering on both sides:

"Stark contrasts and statistics tell tale of widening wealth gap. China's richest man stood on the steps of the Great Hall of the People in Beijing yesterday explaining the impact entry to the World Trade Organisation would have on the private sector. A kilometre away another man stood by the roadside trying to make a living. The man on the steps, Liu Yonghao, 53, chairman of the New Hope Group, is a member of the Standing Committee of the CPPCC, which opened its annual meeting at the Great Hall on Sunday. His family firm has assets of US$1 billion. Not far from the Great Hall, Liang Cuihong, 50, stood on the side of the road, selling an assortment of watches and wallets, a job he took up after the closure of the state electronics factory where he worked for more than 20 years. "You may find this hard to believe, but, after a working life of 30 years, I have just 3,000 yuan in the bank. Most people I know have savings of 10,000 to 20,000 yuan," he said. "Those people at the NPC and CPPCC are bit actors in a play in which the Communist Party leaders play the main roles. They read out the lines which the leaders give them. It is well rehearsed but means nothing for the common people. They are the core members of a group of less than one million people who control the wealth of this country".

South China Morning Post (3/5/02)

And here's a paper from the IZA that has some good research on the topic:

Although urban China has experienced spectacular income growth over the last two decades, increases in inequality, reduction in social welfare provision, deregulation of grain prices, and increases in income uncertainty in the 1990s have increased urban poverty. Using a large repeated cross-section household survey data from 1986 to 2000, this study maps out the change in income, inequality, and poverty over the 15 year period and investigates the determinants of poverty. It is found that the increase in the poverty rate in the 1990s is associated with the increase in the relative food price, and the need to spend on education, housing and medical care which were previously paid by the state. In addition, the increase in the saving rate of the poor due to an increase in income uncertainty contributes significantly to the increase in poverty measured in terms of expenditure. Even though income growth reduces poverty, the radical reform measures implemented in the 1990s have sufficiently offset this gain that urban poverty is higher in 2000 than in 1986.

[Maple]

50. Yes, there are poor people in China

and uneducated peasants. Every country has poor people, but that is what China is working to correct.

And it's up to China how it's done. No other country.

You'd resent the hell out of it if China, Russia, the UK or any other country tried to tell you how to do things...well, the Chinese would feel the same way.

The UN charter btw, expressly forbids interference in another country's internal affairs...which is what makes situations like Rwanda and Darfur so difficult to deal with.

However, most countries refuse to change that position...because they don't want outsiders meddling in their own country.

The US included.

[barb162]

53. Having language in contracts requiring standards is not

meddling; it's done all the time. Whether the srtandards are enforced is another thing. They rarely are, I believe. Rememeber the NIKE shoes fiasco, Kathy Lee Gifford and her overseas sweatshops?

[Maple]

57. Not between countries it isn't

That would be an international trade treaty...very tough to negotiate, hard to get passed, ultimately unenforceable, and not wanted by anyone.

[barb162]

58. Not true

Company to company it is done all the time and it doesn't make a diff about the countries

[Maple]

59. Yes true

NAFTA, CAFTA....sorry

[barb162]

64. some standards are written into those two dumb deals

[Maple]

65. Not standards you'd approve of

and the NAFTA ones were signed as a photo-op for Clinton and Chretien long after the deal was in place.

And according to DU, CAFTA is the 'end of civilization as we know it'

[barb162]

68. And what standards do you approve?

And how do know what standards I would approve since you don't know me.

[Maple]

71. I said

the standards were nothing you'd approve of, given your other posts on here.

My opinion was never mentioned.

Protectionism thinly disguised as brotherly love is not an interest of mine.

[barb162]

75. What is your opinion on Cafta and Nafta as it affects

American workers

[Maple]

76. Which American workers?

The ones at MacDonald's, or the ones at Microsoft?

You will see lots of trade treaties in the next few years.

Bi-lateral at first, then multi-lateral, then multi-block and finally the whole world will free trade.

They'll get better as they go along...this is new to everyone, so it'll take awhile to sort it all out.

But it isn't going away, so you'll just have to adapt.

[barb162]

84. all American workers

[Maple]

87. There's no such thing

'Worker' is a 19th century term, long outdated.