Wednesday, April 15, 2020

Confusion and Hyperbole serve nobody’s Interest

Do you want to know what difference there is between (1) thinking things up before you make your moves or thinking as you make them? and (2) trying to fix things after you've made your moves only to discover that something has gone wrong? If this kind of subject interests you, here is a case study you'll find interesting.

Some of us have been warning of problems waiting to affect the nations that have become too promiscuous in their pursuit of free trade opportunities with other nations in this era of globalization. Egypt and America were the two nations mentioned in particular, given that they have large populations and diverse economies which allow them to be self-sufficient both in the capacity to produce the goods and services that their populations need, and consume most of what they produce.

Unlike the smaller nations that need to specialize in the production of a small number of items and produce them in quantities large enough to be economical –– so as to trade with other nations for what they need that they do not produce themselves –– large population countries such as Egypt and America can do well economically without relying on trade with other nations.

Unfortunately, neither country paid attention to the warnings issued to them. America continued to sell products it made at home, and continued to buy products made abroad, much of which produced by American companies tied in a joint venture with foreign companies. As to Egypt, it was lucky in that the volume of trade it was doing with other countries had not yet caught up with the large number of agreements it had signed with those countries. The result has been that America learned its lesson from a bitter experience, whereas Egypt learned from having walked up to the precipice but stopping before falling down.

Had America not waited for COVID-19 to happen before rethinking its free trade practices, there would not have been a need for an article such as the one written by Sanjai Bhagat. It came under the title: “Outsourcing manufacturing to China endangers US security and public health,” and the subtitle: “High-tech manufacturing and manufacture related to public health and defense must be kept in the United States.” It was published on April 13, 2020 in The Washington Times.

Even though Sanjai Bhagat directs his criticism at America's trade with China, what he says would apply equally if the country were other than China. Thus, the article should be read without regard to the claim that China is the culprit, but thought about in terms of blaming foreign trade for the bad results. When you do that, here is how Bhagat's prologue would sound like: “The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in the United States has brought into sharp focus the critical downside of too much foreign trade during the past three decades, and the outsourcing of manufacturing to foreign countries”.

Much of what Bhagat says after that opening, concerns the statistical realities that describe the current situation in actual numbers. And that's where you clearly see how precarious America's position in the world has become. In fact, someone else has noticed that precariousness as well, and here is how Bhagat has described that actuality: “US policymakers are concerned that China might weaponize medical exports to the United States. How did we get to be so vulnerable?”

But the fact that China did not weaponize medical exports to the United States any more than it did the rare earths, some of which it owns at the exclusion of everyone else, says a great deal about the maturity of the Chinese system of governance, especially when you contrast China's behavior with America's trigger happy disposition to shoot with the gun of economic sanctions at anyone that defies it.

In fact, having shown this level of maturity, China does not deserve being described the way that Sanjai Bhagat did, as shown in the collection of passages that follow:

“In the US-China trade relation, China subverted the US advantage by requiring US firms to transfer their technologies to China for market access. Another problem with the all-trade-is-good position is [China's] impact on US national security. As their economy has strengthened, China has become more aggressive toward the US armed forces. With China's entry into the WTO, a cartel of Chinese companies colluded on price. They sold these antibiotics and hospital supplies much below-cost and drove all US makers out of business, after which they increased the price several-fold”.

There are five accusations here that were made to sound serious when in reality they amount to less than a hill of beans. In fact, if you visit any courtroom in North America where commercial disputes are litigated, you'll find that this kind of accusations are dismissed at the outset or at best, adjudicated and disposed of in less than one hour.