Specter is right. Obama is wrong. China is NOT operating in good faith and WILL NOT.

[ddeclue]

Obama doesn't get that China will never just let us sell things in China. He acts like everybody is operating in good faith but China isn't. Arlen Specter is right. Obama is wrong. He's singing Kumbaya with China just like he spent the last year doing with the Republican Party. Well at least Obama seems to have realized that that was mistake. How long will it take him (if ever) before he realizes China is jerking his chain too?

[WI_DEM]

1. Obama didn't spend the last year singing Kumbaya with the Republican party.

[closeupready]

5. Oh, yes he did.

n/t

[Name removed]

6. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laughingliberal]

48. True. Obama sang and they just stood there and said 'No.' nt

[Romulox]

2. Nonsense. Democracy will FLOURISH in China, if only we send our jobs there!

:shrug:

[Moochy]

3. He knows that China wont open it's markets

but the script in Washington requires that the President must continually be seen asking the Chinese for something that we'll never get.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. When will YOU realize that China has the leverage to jerk America's chain?

And that we pretty much have to take it.

[theoldman]

8. Most Americans have not realized that China is in control because we borrowed

so much money from them. Until we pay back the Bush loans we will have to kiss their ass. Remember the old song "I owe my soul to the company store".

[Romulox]

13. It's nonsense. We default, they're ruined. WE (our monied class) have/has the leverage. nt

[northofdenali]

53. Wrong.

Why not just tell 'em "sorry we can't pay ya"? Let 'em kiss our ass. I despise China. Obviously.

[Romulox]

12. That's like saying the dog must listen to the tic's commands, lest the DOG die!

China is a parasite in our undercoat. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. The possibly the most ignorant thing I've heard since "I can see Russia from my house!" (nt)

[Lucky Luciano]

49. Ever hear the statement:

Borrow $1MM and the bank owns you - borrow $1B and you own the bank. China depends on us to buy their shit and pay the interest/principal on our government bonds - if they lost both at the same time, they (and the rest of the world) would be back near the stone age.

[Romulox]

36. Re-read your own posts to this thread, Mr. Beamintheeye. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. Oooh, got any other clever retorts?

Or was your smart friend in gym class out sick today, leaving you with no further ammunition to regurgitate?

[Romulox]

43. I have no idea who you are. Nor do I care. nt

[endless october]

7. manufacture in America.

that's the way to bring back a strong middle class.

[hayu_lol]

9. China operates to the benefit of China...

why haven't we operated this way to our own benefit instead of criticizing China?

They have moved forward over the past 60 years...we seem/appear to be moving backwards...back toward the terrible times of the 'Gilded Age.'

[Hannah Bell]

34. china operates to the benefit of its ruler-owners, same as the us.

[cdsilv]

10. We're in two wars protecting CHINA's oil interests.......

IMHO.

[jaxx]

11. Does that statement infer that the President is stupid?

Surely not. And what is this if Arlen says it, it's got to be true because Arlen is such a true blue lifelong democrat?

There are chains and there are chains...the thing is to be able to tell them apart. All depends on who's doing the jerking.

[Romulox]

14. You mean "imply". YOU infer, I imply.

/english major

[jaxx]

15. Ho hum.

But a nice dodge for an answer.

[Romulox]

16. You need to be a more careful reader all the way around. This ain't my thread.

:hi:

[jaxx]

18. Yeah but it's your posts.

[Romulox]

19. You are still confused. Take your time. Maybe put it down and come back to it. nt

[jaxx]

23. I'm not at all confused.

And I'm too tired to play cat and mouse with you, though it might be fun.

So I'll be going to bed for the day.....enjoy your moment.

Jaxx the Base

[Romulox]

24. Maybe when you wake up you can explain who put me in charge of defending Arlen Specter's words.

:shrug: :hi:

[bridgit]

17. China's trade policies are being reviewed in ways that are causing us to review ours...

Obama's follow-up to Spector's question tapping on enforcement is the tip of an iceberg whose mass below includes a boggling disparity in tariff & exchange rates that will be pushed closed whether China holds our 'paper' or not. Or it will be suggested China explain such diversity in their ability to ignore reciprocal trade policy & relationships they've clamored for for decades as Favored Nation

Everything from China's production numbers & construction code enforcement able to effect the likes of structural/shear concrete failures; to dry wall; to baby food; to Pharma products; to cat food; to lead toys with widget parts that choke kids; to ICBM's; to Google; to Tibet; to brittle Chinese steel are indicators, at least to me, that Chinese oligarchs are actually freaking out - they see in their inability to provide economic stability vast protests oozing cross the landscape by the 100's of thousands toward The Forbidden City of Middle Earth - and they're willing to see a few cats go down to make sure that doesn't happen

Yeah, they like the money that capitalism is able to generate but no: China has little intention of sending everyone back to their farms, possible solution?

Re-tool trade policy with China to either be more fair or explain or update a Chinese Communism that has already collapsed in its little regard for the health of millions of people and viable products other than kites, tourism, black lacquer tea cups and firecrackers

I'll be watching to see if Obama shows up on that day

[treestar]

20. I see where he's coming from

One doesn't have to agree with it.

He's trying to scold the Republicans into being decent again.

Now what the Chinese have done to deserve this, I don't know. I'm sure they are tough as to their interests but will reserve judgment on whether they are not in good faith.

[H2O Man]

21. While you are correct,

it is worth noting that President Obama is not in a position that allows him to speak openly and honestly on this issue. Sad, but true.

[arthritisR_US]

26. yep, that's the way I see it too. n/t

[Tim01]

22. China operating in good faith. *snicker* nt

[arthritisR_US]

25. yes but what he fails to realize is that China holds all the cards. They hold your enormous debt and

if they ever call in your loans all hell will break loose. Care and attention is really needed when dealing with China, jmo.

[On the Road]

27. China is Actually in a Very Tenuous Position

any major movement by the US to restrict imports would tank their economy.

The Chinese don't hold nearly the amount of US debt that people seem to believe. The value of those T-bills can tank at any time if interest rates rise or the bond market sinks. And how do you call a T-bill, anyway? There is no provision for doing that.

The Chinese are pursuing their interests vigorously, which they interpret as increasing their manufacturing base and foreign capital position. They will make concessions, but only if they're forced to do so by the possibility of real economic damage.

[arthritisR_US]

28. geeze I have a lot to learn. Great info and thanks. I'm reading a book I picked up

to learn about some of this stuff and as you can tell I'm not much beyond the table of contents. But, with DU and reading I'll get there :-)

[On the Road]

31. Thank You for the Nice Response

I am not an expert on international trade, either, but have an MBA, 20 years of corporate experience, and a significant other whose brothers run an HVAC business in China.

The Chinese as a whole are very driven to financial success, economically insecure, and materialistic. They're doing what they see as helping their own country and putting the accelerator to the floor. Trade is a big part of that. It's fundamentally not that different from the bad things the US does in pursuing its own perceived interest IMO.

In asking why the US has been so timid in trying to balance trade with China, I think you have to ask what interest the US has in pursuing the status quo. There are a lot of businesses who benefit from cheap Chinese goods. Cheap imports also help control inflation as well. So there are several interests who may discourage any kind of tough protectionist actions.

The WTO framework makes unilateral trade action a lot harder than it used to be. But if the issue is Chinese imports of US goods, there are mechanisms for forcing freer trade. Just has to be taken seriously and given priority.

[arthritisR_US]

35. I wonder if the lack of protectionist action is because of all the American firms that

have opened up in China in the past 15 years. I'm thinking about corporate income tax - isn't it that companies earning profits overseas get a dollar-for-dollar credit against taxes due in the States? Also isn't it that profits earned overseas are not taxed so long as the money stays offshore? I'm wondering if the apple cart of trade were tipped if the Chinese would kick out the American firms and there goes their tax shelters and free cash? Gee, I hope my convoluted logic makes sense.

[amandabeech]

54. The Chinese hold treasury and government agency bonds.

They do not work like regular loans, but like stocks.

China cannot call these bonds.

They can only sell them like stocks.

If they dump them all at once, they lose a lot of money.

If they decide to get out of U.S. government securities, it will take quite some time for them to do so and still get a decent amount of money for them.

[grahamhgreen]

29. China is at war with us - as are the international corporations -question is- is Obama and the DLC?

[earth mom]

32. What's stopping Obama from placing tariffs on Chinese goods?

That's the question everyone should be asking.

[Romulox]

38. A whole lotta corporate "free speech". nt

[Hannah Bell]

33. "China will never just let us sell things in China." lol.

the best-selling car in china = gm.

china is a colony of foreign capital. half their exorts are wholly-owned by foreign capital & about 80-90% of their tech exports.

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1909818_1908558,00.html

[Romulox]

37. Those Buicks are made in China, Hannah. Nobody cares about CAPITAL--we care about JOBS. nt

[Hannah Bell]

40. irrelevant to the assertion that "china will never let us sell things in china".

"we" don't sell things in china.

the owners of *capital* do. china allows them to.

the owners of capital are the ones sending jobs to china, along with their capital.

please don't blur the facts.

you want jobs in the us? better address the real causes, instead of making "china" the scapegoat.

including the fact that china has, like us, had a net loss of manufacturing jobs also. the cause = capital-driven tech improvements.

[Romulox]

42. It's of prime relevance. It's OUR LABOR that they won't let "us" sell...

:hi:

[Hannah Bell]

45. plenty of jobs for americans in china. i have friends there. you can teach privately or in state

unis, you can work for companies, & to a limited extent you can have some kinds of business (e.g. english bookstore).

go sell your labor.

oh, you mean you can't sell it here? in what way is this caused by "china"?

[Romulox]

55. It's posts like these that make me question your sincerity.

The solution is for American workers to move to China? :puke:

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Wow Hannah I actually agree with you on an economic topic

I think this is a first.

[Hannah Bell]

47. first of many, i'm sure. glad you've seen the light. :>)

[Lucky Luciano]

50. I almost never agree with Hannah, but I value her commentary.

No matter what, she is well informed.

[Lucky Luciano]

51. Dupe

[ddeclue]

41. yeah that car is made WHERE again? oh yeah I forgot CHINA.

[Hannah Bell]

44. and who gets the profits, again? oh yeah, gm, a "us" corporation.

i.e. china is allowing "us" to sell things to "them".

as is typically the case when "we" sell things abroad, "us" = corporations, & it's corporations who reap the main benefit, not "us".

your comments on jobs are irrelevant to the post i commented on. toyota provides jobs in the us. bank of china provides jobs in the us. nestle provides jobs in the us. they're all foreign corps. so whether or not china lets "us" sell to "them" has nothing to do with jobs in the us.

it's *our* corporations shipping jobs, not the chinese.

[burning rain]

52. Smart politics for Specter.

Free trade is particularly unpopular in Pennsylvania. The late John Heinz was during his career perhaps the Senate's leading opponent of free trade, and he was not coincidentally wildly popular and managed the the amazing feat of securing the United Steelworkers' endorsement despite being a Republican.