More Meyerson Myths

by Don Boudreaux on November 19, 2009

in Myths and Fallacies, The Economy, The Hollow Middle, Trade

Here’s a letter that I sent yesterday to the Washington Post:

Harold Meyerson’s discussion of U.S. trade with China is a buffet of errors (“A marriage made in China,” Nov. 18).

For example, portraying trade with China as gutting both America’s export potential and America’s manufacturing base, Meyerson fails to mention two crucial facts: First, the inflation-adjusted value of U.S. exports to China in 2008 were more than 300 percent greater than they were in 1998, the year the U.S. normalized trade with China.*

Second, the real value of U.S. manufacturing output continues to rise.  By the end of 2008 – despite the economic downturn – manufacturing output in the U.S. was 13 percent higher than it was in 1998.**

Another error is Mr. Meyerson’s assertion that “By artificially depressing its currency and making its exports cheaper, China is compelling other nations to erect trade barriers.”  Put aside the question of whether or not China truly is “artificially depressing its currency.”  Other nations are no more “compelled” to erect trade barriers in response to Beijing’s cheap-yuan policy than these other nations would be “compelled” to torpedo their own merchant-marine ships in response to Beijing torpedoing Chinese merchant vessels.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux

* I adjusted these current-dollar trade figures for inflation by using the Minneapolis Fed’s calculator.

** See table B-51 here.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • russnelson
    Trade restrictions are what a country does to itself that in wartime the enemy seeks to do.
  • tw
    http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/18/finally-a-c...

    Don,

    Try to get all your letters written/sent early next week instead of waiting until Wednesday. Did you see this article? Rep. Cleaver (Missouri) wants to pass a resolution making the day before Thanksgiving a "Complaint-Free Day."

    While not wasting time to analyze the obvious Orwellian aspects of such a stupid resolution, it's instead a much better proof point of just how drunk with power this class of politicians is.
  • jed1kn1ght@yahoo.com
    US-China relations are on a rational plane. Both Obama and Hu are treading ever more softly. This is what is expected of them.

    Past performance is no guide for the future. May be past performance can be used as a guide after all.

    There was never any rational plane for US-China relations in the 19th and 20th centuries. "Normalcy" then was either love or hate.

    The US Navy and the military establishment overall would likely be preferring hate and rekindle brinkmanship at the edge of Chinese air space. They don't really hate China, but maybe they do need a hypothetical enemy to justify the overwhelmingly resources this peculiar American behemoth consumes.

    In retrospect, Obama missed his golden opportunity to embrace Hu Jintao as a signal for a period of courtship. What is in the way? Maybe TV images are in the way. One can hardly imagine an embrace between the two leaders in front of TV cameras. Hu is too wooden.

    But Obama is a master of words, and he should have been briefed on the Chinese respect for words and that his oratorical skill could really be used in front of a select Chinese audience who were there to dissect every word Obama uttered. Yes, love affairs for the Chinese can be much more subtle than public embraces. The classic pattern is "xin xin xiang in" or "heart to heart". Should a love affair takes off the ground, then the two lovers would be full of fulsome praises for each other. After all beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
  • jed1kn1ght@yahoo.com
    US-China relations are on a rational plane. Both Obama and Hu are treading ever more softly. This is what is expected of them.

    Past performance is no guide for the future. May be past performance can be used as a guide after all.

    There was never any rational plane for US-China relations in the 19th and 20th centuries. "Normalcy" then was either love or hate.

    The US Navy and the military establishment overall would likely be preferring hate and rekindle brinkmanship at the edge of Chinese air space. They don't really hate China, but maybe they do need a hypothetical enemy to justify the overwhelmingly resources this peculiar American behemoth consumes.

    In retrospect, Obama missed his golden opportunity to embrace Hu Jintao as a signal for a period of courtship. What is in the way? Maybe TV images are in the way. One can hardly imagine an embrace between the two leaders in front of TV cameras. Hu is too wooden.

    But Obama is a master of words, and he should have been briefed on the Chinese respect for words and that his oratorical skill could really be used in front of a select Chinese audience who were there to dissect every word Obama uttered. Yes, love affairs for the Chinese can be much more subtle than public embraces. The classic pattern is "xin xin xiang in" or "heart to heart". Should a love affair takes off the ground, then the two lovers would be full of fulsome praises for each other. After all beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
  • Methinks1776
    Not to worry. Ben Bernanke is already artificially depressing our currency. All should be well very soon.
  • mcwop
    Here is a perspective from Niall Furguson:
    http://www.niallferguson.com/site/FERG/Template...
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: