By Nathanael Blake
Friday, December 27, 2019
Contrary to the old adage, cheaters frequently prosper.
From the New England Patriots to our Chinese trading partners, a lot of
unscrupulous folks have done quite well for themselves by cheating. This
invites the question of what sort of fools would keep dealing with known,
unreformed cheaters?
This is among the questions raised by Kevin Williamson’s
oblique seeming response to my criticism of one of his recent columns. I am
unsure whether to feel slighted that this National Review writer did not
deign to dignify me with a direct response or, given his abusive abilities when
irate, to count it a small mercy.
Regardless, Williamson has implicitly acknowledged the
problem with his snark about those who worried about the “sneaky Chinese”
stealing American jobs. As he puts it, “the biggest beef U.S. firms have with
China [is] the theft of intellectual property, particularly in the form of
counterfeit goods.” He argues that the best response to this is to enforce, and
perhaps strengthen, the laws we have against counterfeiting and importing
counterfeit goods.
This is a reasonable point, and I support the stepped-up
enforcement measures he recommends. If the goal is to protect ourselves while
maximizing trade with China, these are good recommendations. However, in making
the argument, Williamson concedes that there are significant costs to doing
business with cheaters and scofflaws, and that regimes matter when trading.
These points ought to be examined, for they complicate the narrative of free
trade as an inevitable boon to all parties.
The Costs of Trading with a Dishonest Regime
One of Williamson’s mantras is that trade is between
individuals, not countries. This is (mostly) true when we are discussing, say,
Missouri residents buying single-malt Scotch, or Scottish barbecue aficionados
(surely there must be some) buying Missouri barbecue rubs and sauces. It is not
really true when we are talking about dealing with a totalitarian (nominally
communist but really fascist) country like mainland China.
Trade with such a regime is never free because the
government is always in control of business, which has no rights it can assert
against the government. The Chinese government is uninterested in the fair and
free exchange of goods and services, instead viewing trade as a form of
leverage and a way to procure technology.
The Chinese government has an ideological imperative —
communists disdain private property — as well as geopolitical and financial
incentives to turn a blind eye toward and even to encourage fraud and theft
when targeted at Americans. Of course, we have plenty of homegrown rip-off
merchants and scam artists, but American law enforcement works to squelch them.
Dealing with honest businesses under an honest government
(by the standards of governments) is not the same as dealing with a regime like
China’s. The latter imposes extra costs, as doing nothing means intellectual
property is stolen and counterfeits flood the market. Taking action, whether
hiring more port inspectors or Amazon increasing its efforts against
counterfeiters, costs money, and these costs are not necessarily borne by those
who have been profiting from dealing with unscrupulous foreign business and
regimes.
Such costs have not been honestly accounted for by those
advocating for free trade with the regime in Beijing. There are also other
social and cultural costs of which we are only just becoming aware. Doing
business with China has made our movies subject to the censorship of the
Chinese Communist Party. It has made NBA stars who boldly speak about domestic
politics into cowards when asked about China’s current genocidal campaign
against a Muslim-minority population. There are many more examples of China
using its economic power to squelch the free speech rights of its critics.
Going into business with murderous, quasi-communist
bastards gives them leverage, and they use it. Our trade relations with China
have not liberalized that country; they have given the thugs who rule it more
tools of repression at home and the means to buy favor and bully critics
abroad. After adding up the expensive externalities and the social cost, cheap
stuff from China does not look as affordable as it does on the store shelf or
the online cart.
Trade with China Has Created Real Problems
Perhaps trade with China and other totalitarian regimes
is still worth it. Maybe the money is just too good to pass up, even accounting
for the costs of dealing with a crooked government that encourages crooked
businesses. It should nonetheless be clear that the carefree arguments used to
justify free trade with other free and friendly nations are not obviously
applicable to trade with a tyrannical geopolitical rival.
Our trade relations with China have not gone according to
plan, and it is past time for a reckoning. President Trump’s trade war against
China has been a haphazard campaign, but he was at least able to recognize that
there was a problem with the autopilot trajectory of our previous trade
policies. He has not provided a clear alternative trade policy, but his
presidency has created opportunities for Republican politicians who will
effectively rethink the issue.
Even if our trade relations with China are for the
greater good, they have created real problems, including many caused by the
malfeasance of that regime. These difficulties must be addressed, first of all
by those who insist we continue our close economic relationships with China.
Those who support free trade, even with regimes like China’s, should be
offering solutions to the problems created by making deals with such tyrants,
rather than sneering at those who have suffered by them.
No comments:
Post a Comment