November 20, 2004

• Reminds me of a mini-scandal in the mid-1990s: the government launched a "Buy Canadian" roadsign campaign. Turns out the signs were made.. in the US.
• Interesting. I'd actually gladly buy Canadian, too, since our countries are somewhat symbiotic.
• You need to see this
• What samlam said...that Frontline episode was fascinating. I had no idea how extensive Wal-Mart's business dealings in China were.
• WaPo on apparel import and textile exports (Op-Ed)
• 当然，从中国人的角度来看这是个非常好的事情。你们美国佬大概是另外一个感觉。 China's rapid industrialisation and further integration in the global market promises great changes for the world's most populous nation and will hopefully create the space for political reform to follow economic reform. Who cares how it impacts America as long as you keep buying our stuff?
• Personally, I buy the highest quality good I can afford, unless the products are all of the same quality. For example, I think its safe to say that a broom made in China is in all respects the same as a broom made in the US, and that its lower cost makes it a better value. Other things, particularly food, I like to buy local produce because I know that it helps local farms and local jobs, which in turn has effects on the local economy that raise the standard of living for myself and those in my area. Since the US is no longer a manufacturing-led economy -- that's the reality -- and have moved to a service economy, the larger question you're asking is whether to buy at Walmart or Walmart-esque stores. Walmart not only &*%^s its workers, but also those vendors it buys from, in its race to pay the lowest possible price for the labor and goods required to run Walmart stores and collect xyz profit for moving units. Its the business model of Walmart that troubles me, not what they sell or where it is made. There are other companies — Costco is one notable example — that have a much different business model that is as profitable but doesn't &(%@# over labor or vendors nearly as much. Like buying a cup of coffee, I can buy non-FT coffee from Starbucks, or go to the corner shop and get a similarly priced cup of joe that tastes as good and is fairer for all involved. People don't have much choice where products are made, but they can choose where they buy those products from, wherever they are made. Consumers have a lot more power than they realize, if they educate themselves.
• oh Alex, welcome to the new world, we don't need to educate ourselves...We have the TV to educate us on wise consumption lifestyles!
• fair trade Starbucks coffee
• The always excellent things magazine had a good link the other day, to this rather remarkable photography site with images of a toy factory and other factory workers in China. I considered posting a link to it at the time, but things magazine is probably well known to most people here, and I decided that anybody who would be interested would probably have seen it already. Still, worth following the link if you haven't seen it before. Another straw in the wind was this recent article in the Guardian reporting that 'more than a third of the waste paper and plastic collected by British local authorities, supermarkets and businesses for recycling is being sent 8000 miles to China', which sounds bizarre until you read the reason for it. 'The trade is made possible by the vast numbers of shipping containers arriving in Britain with Chinese exports', and since the containers have to go back to China anyway, why not send them back full of paper and plastic?
• You have to ask for it specially, which takes them more time and effort to brew — and that's if they agree to do it, which can be a tricky proposition depending on how busy they are and how agreeable the scheduled manager is with the idea. Since its so difficult to get them to agree even to that, much less using recycled cup material, why bother? Its clear their corporate mindset is so stubborn about providing a fairer product, even if they realize the same profits, that they Just Don't Care. Besides, local coffee shops have much more pleasant and quirky atmospheres, and often better taste in music, than any generic Starbucks.
• Also, many Starbucks don't even have the fair-trade coffee in stock. I have worked for a couple in the past and I -never- saw a bag of the stuff.
• I'm with Alex - it's not where something is made, but how the business operates. Currently, I am concerned about Chinese exports, because the Special Economic Zones where most of the export manufacturing is done do not have adequate labour protection laws (both on wages and safety). Overseas trade that isn't abusive to the workers is good, but too often this isn't about bringing profit to developing nations, but to western companies operating outside of western rules. But I wonder what are our choices in shopping - as a student, I often buy my clothes from retailers like Walmart, or go around with holes in my trousers. Many families are also in my position. Was this always so? How is that working class in the West families find it hard to buy products made by themselves? Is it that a) these aren't working class families, but those who have slipped out of the respectable working class due to lack of manufacturing, or b) that really many of us can afford to pay that little bit more to make sure workers have a decent living and safety standards, and to keep our own countrymen employed, but we just want to get that deal, and have an extra $20 to spend on things we don't need? I don't know enough about the complex economics to know. Probably a little of both, and both trends feed the other. I'm trying to change my own buying habits - I'll pay a little more for things from a local artisanal shop or for gifts from Ten Thousand Villages (wonderful things there). But can I find a pair of jeans that are tough and last more than 6 months without ripping? I don't know.
• Something else to consider: "Foreign lending also underwrites the American government. Some 46 percent of the total federal debt in public hands is now held by foreigners, and the bulk of the most recent purchases have been made by Asian central banks, particularly the Japanese and the Chinese. The fact that the financial stability of the United States today depends on the central bank of the People’s Republic of China is not widely known."
• The fact that the financial stability of the United States today depends on the central bank of the People’s Republic of China is not widely known. And likewise. If America defaults, that would be bad for China's economy.
• jb: Working class Americans never used to be in competition with the labour of dictatorships. Ergo, they used to be richer. Generally: China is an unpleasant dictatorship. It's not as nasty and evil as some, but it is. Personally, I prefer not to prop up regimes if I can buy from alternatives, either locally made or made in poor countries with better systems of government (such as India or the Phillipines). People like to talk up a storm about change in China, but I see scant evidence of it. Sadly, there are whole classes of goods where the alternative to China is not having them at all, so this strategy has its limits.
• When is someone going to open a "Made in America Only" store that only sells goods manufaxctured here in the US. (It's a protectionist wet dream)
• xxx
• heres an article on customer privacy and walmart (nytimes article - bugmenot may be required) Personally I dont shop at Walmart, I think it is the great satan. I try to avoid buying products made in China but sometimes I have no alternative.
• About Walmart: I'm primarily concerned about the concentration of so much power in so few hands. Walmart may not be a monopoly, but the company has tremendous economic power, and that's not good. I'm amazed, actually, that when I talk to conservatives and libertarian-minded people about Walmart -- people who want to see smaller government, who champion an extreme separation of powers in the government to avoid abuses -- when it comes to massive corporations, they say these issues don't matter and, well, to let the market decide. Trouble is, how is the market supposed to work when one company has a huge competitive advantage over others due to economies of scale, scope and sheer influence? The barrier to entry -- to even hope to compete -- is already high, and as Walmart grows, it's only going to get worse. I don't like the way Walmart funnels profit out of local communities, usually at the expense of small business. Which, as it turns out, further increases their power. That's bad, and it's the reason I don't shop there, even if it means I pay slightly higher prices somewhere else. Despite this, though, I don't think Walmart is all bad. The situation is more complex than that. One of my professors watched that show on PBS, and couldn't stop talking about how evil and bad Walmart is for the way they treat their employees, their suppliers, the economic effects, the large profits -- basically, any issue you could imagine. I don't think it's that simple. I don't like the way they treat their employees, but that just means Walmart is the last place I'd work. They probably wouldn't hire me anyway, as I'd show up too liberal/likely to promote unionization in their applications/personality profiles. For the better, I say. It's not like there aren't other places to work, even in the low-skill/low-pay sector. In economic terms, Walmart, it seems to me, is basically the costumer writ large. If consumers (I hate that word) could organize the way companies and unions do, a sort of market force similar to Walmart would be the result, I think. Walmart does result in lower prices. It does mean greater efficiency. These are good things. It also means manufacturing jobs leave first world countries, but are we entitled to those jobs in the first place? Are we entitled to live in such ridiculous comfort simply because we were born in a wealthy country? If the cost of living is lower somewhere else, and if a less consumer-driven culture somewhere else facilitates lower wages, shouldn't those people have the same chance to compete for those jobs? Shouldn't it be up to them to decide on minimum wages, production standards, etc? Otherwise, aren't we imposing our culture on them? On the other hand, a lot of these countries don't have adequate labor standards because they have crappy governments who won't enforece them. Who's responsible for that, and are economics and politics ever separable? I don't know, just a few of my thoughts.
• I think it is naive to think that by exporting comsumerism to China, we can win the hearts and minds of the Mainland Chinese. As the article homonculus linked to in the other thread explains, Mainland China, despite it's lip-service to Communism, is a Fascist state. Selling them Coca-cola and Malboros won't change that. Those Americans among us have to reconcile with the fact that our economy is beholden to a Fascist regime.
• Tinfoil - I was being a little facetious above but not entirely. I do think that trade with China will help accelerate change. Not because I think the Party as currently constituted are liable to to be converted (though don't dismiss them - I've met plenty of bright people who joined to serve because it's the only game in town) but because history shows that when people get economic power, they eventually begin to demand the political power to go with it. The ructions in England in the 17th century are a case in point. In China the Party's decison at its 22nd Congress recently to admit capitalists is a tacit admission of this and an attempt to preemptively co-opt the new wealthy. At the same time we're seeing a rise in the demand of the rule of law against abitrary fiat and a propertied middle class who are showing stirrings of, if not rebelliousness, some sense of wanting more say. This journal I used to work for is a good resource on China's emerging civil society and other related topics. Personally I'd love to see change on behalf of the most disenfrancised here first, but rationally the best hope shorter term is that the haves make some openings that will eventually benefit the have-nots too.
• That should have been 16th Congress for all you Party hacks out there.
• Abiezer_Coppe: Thanks for the link and your comments. Both very informative. I should have said in my original comment that its not that I don't hope for change in China (I sincerely do), I just have my doubts about how much power the Party is willing to give back to the people. I see your point about the newly monied being brought into the party, but I think we also have to remember Lord Acton's warning: "...Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
• rolypolyman: Apologies for the slight derail. Here is a slightly scary site which tells you how to "buy American."
• I avoid buying almost all potential goods from China. There is still enough of a manufacturing base left in the US from which to purchase most every type of product. Of course the variety is not the same but I'm willing to pay a dollar or two more to support American industries. It takes a little searching sometimes to find stores that sell the US made products.
• Fuckers just bought our entire car industry. Cunts. Whose gonna inefficiently manufacture uninspiring cars desperately clutching onto faint memories of a once-great heritage now?
• I saw one of those "God Bless America" magnetic car ribbons for sale at a convenience store today. Made in China. The problem with buying things based solely on their nominal value is that not all the costs of goods show up at the check-out line. We in the US (and many other countries) have decided that certain values are important to us and we're willing to pay to achieve them. Examples are safety and health standards for workers and regulations to protect the environment. We pay higher taxes or higher prices for goods to enforce those values. China doesn't have the same standards. Workers are treated poorly and there are few environmental restrictions. Yet some of us want to think of goods from China being comparable to those made in the US (or Canada, W Europe, etc.). They aren't. The Chinese-made goods are always going to be "cheaper" because the cost of those things we value aren't reflected in the price. I'm mostly a free-trade proponent. I don't think, however, that this is free trade. Goods from China must reflect the costs that are built in to products made here. I don't see how that can be done without some kind of tarrif. How can we penalize our own producers and their employees for upholding the values we believe in?
• in + to = into
• I don't think, however, that this is free trade. Goods from China must reflect the costs that are built in to products made here. Actually it is the very definition of 'free trade' and a 'free market'. Imposing tariffs is the antithesis of 'free trade'. Arguing that adding tariffs to a product will raise intrinsic social values is odd. Its not going to raise the living standard of another culture. It is not going to bring about workers compensation, higher wages, higher safety standards etc for workers from another country. Tariffs can be (and often are) economic protectionism (if there is such a concept) and used to reduce competetion for local producers. Boycotts on the other hand are a very powerful economic tool, look at what happened in South Africa because of the enormous economic pressure the world put on them.
• Yeah, what beeza said. I'm not happy about labor standards and stuff in China and elsewhere, but I'm definitely in the "from a moral standpoint, if I have to choose supporting people and even children working crappy jobs or, alternatively, denyine my commerce to them entirely and implicitly supporting them being in deeper poverty, I'll go with the former" camp. It bothers me, even with environmental concerns, which I have strong feelings about, that the developed world is insisting that the developing world get to where we are without, um, going through all the unpleasant middle steps we went through. And it seems to me too often the response of the developed world is, well, too bad if you can't figure out how to do it justly and cleanly etc. I guess you can't become a developed economy, huh? That really bothers me. Timefactor is right in the sense that there's all sorts of things that collectively, in a democracy, we've decided to pay a premium built into our economy to finance certain things we think are just. The answer is NOT to insist that tarrifs be put on imported good to make them the same cost as ours, because not only will it stifle the commerce and, essentially, the wealth going over to the poor people, but the extra amount being collected is going back to us, which hardly seems fair. No, the right thing to do is find ways to encourage consumers and developing world industries to be willing to pay a premium for those foreign businesses that do things the way we want them to. Because we do pay a certain amount of money for this and if we insist on it, then we should be willing to explicitly pay for, shouldn't we? So in this sense I support some versions of "fair trade" where the idea is to educate the consumer such that developed world consumers are actually paying more than they otherwise would, willingly, to developing world business to do things the way that we'd like. We're paying for it, right? But I think most people that might talk about this stuff are more interested in talking about it than actually intentionally paying more money to a developing world supplier that adheres to higher labor and environmental standards. Mostly, as is always the case, people want a free lunch. We want what's right, but we're not actually that willing to pay for it. Of course, that's a big part of the reason why democratic societies actually legislate a lot of social justice that's related to economic justice, because we're not individually always willing to make the sacrifices that we so piously claim are necessary.
• Maybe it's worth buying products from a third world country to help prevent poverty but where does the money go? Is this the most effective way to prevent poverty? I would be interested to see a cost breakdown of a product made in China and a comparative product made in the US. The actual prices that the consumer pays are not significantly different, perhaps 5-10%? For the imported product how much of the final purchase cost go to the worker, the manufacturer, shipping, tariffs, etc? Does the company who creates the product make more profit on imported goods?
• Smo - those are very interesting thoughts. kmellis - it's a bit more complicated that that.The developed world developed just at the moment that it was economically using the undeveloped world - Britain's trade increased in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on coffee, sugar, tobacco - none grown in Britain, and much of it grown with slave labour. In the nineteenth century, they industrialised on cotton - again, imported at low prices; they imported grains to keep their workers happy from India, even during the great famines of the 1870s and 90s. The developed world got where it is today on the backs of the developing world. Is it even possible for development to come without this kind of exploitation? What does it mean if the developing world devours its own people to acheive it? But actually, I don't see the developing world developing - I see Western companies going there to set up companies to suck profit back to the West. Just like in the nineteenth century unequal trade. There are a minority in the developing country who are getting richer, but most of the profits are acrewing back here in North America and Europe. (Just as JJ86 points out) And one small correction on the 17th century English civil war - the idea that it was about political representation from a rising middle class is really out of date (like about 3 decades) - and the people who were "rising" were gentry and never middle class. It was a complicated relationship between the changing nature of parliament and local government (dating back to Elizabeth, if not earlier), and the growing religious tensions. Sorry, just had to lead sections on this recently :)