Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About James Hall
James Hall is a reformed, former political operative. This pundit's formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, citizen participation is a lifetime commitment. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a worldview for commerce. Recent involvements include Tea Party activism and the CWW and CPA environmental and energy sites, which are ongoing projects, involved with public policy. James Hall is the publisher of BATR and his SARTRE Commentary presence on the internet. Scores of political sites re-publish his essays. http://batr.net/
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
China Becomes Largest Trading Nation
James Hall
January 15, 2014
The globalists put their plan into motion decades ago. The proper meaning of the headline is not that China is an economic miracle, but that the United States, systematically stripped of its industrial might, is destined to fall even further. The Chinese economy is a haven of direct transnational integration. The outsourcing of manufacturing from domestic capacity is not solely a response of cheaper economic cost of goods production. No, the underlying reason for the migration of product assemblage is to weaken an independent American economy.

The news of this long awaited milestone, primarily announced in the foreign press, almost has a ring of glee. The Guardian reports that China surpasses US as world's largest trading nation.

"China's annual trade in goods passed the $4tn (£2.4tn) mark for the first time last year according to official data, after exports from the world's second largest economy rose 7.9% to $2.21tn and imports rose 7.3% to $1.95tn.

As a result total trade rose 7.6% over the year to $4.16tn. The US is yet to publish its 2013 trade figures, but with trade totaling $3.5tn in the first 11 months of the year, it is unlikely to beat China."


Further coverage presented in the Telegraph, the Financial Times and the BBC, reflects I told you so attitude.

"It's always been a matter of time until China surpasses the US ... and there are good reasons to believe that China is likely to retain this pole position for the foreseeable future.

"The trade figures look very healthy and the factors underpinning them are structurally sustainable. It is hard to see them being reversed significantly, at least in the short to medium term."


Contrast this viewpoint with the assessment out of Marketwatch.

"And let's not forget: The economic data out of Chinese agencies has long been seen as a bit questionable. Even the country's own statistics office has said it is trying to clean up the inaccuracies. As our own Michael Kitchen points out, trade data has come under particular suspicion, as businesses disguise some money flows as trade to try to bypass controls."

Of course, the US press continues to make excuses that conceal the betrayal of American trade policy goals and practices. These are the same business journalists that repeat the statistical figures coming out of recent administrations that need revisions, when caught in dramatic errors of omission or deception.

Proponents of a structured destruction of America's economy, laud international trade, as long as it slanted to eliminate domestic survival and reduces our standard of living. This lunacy, stated in Benefits of International Trade, does not square with the aftermath of a trade deficit that has become a permanent fixture.

Some important benefits of International Trade:

▪ Enhances the domestic competitiveness
▪ Takes advantage of international trade technology
▪ Increases sales and profits
▪ Extend sales potential of the existing products
▪ Maintain cost competitiveness in your domestic market
▪ Enhance potential for expansion of your business
▪ Gains a global market share
▪ Reduce dependence on existing markets
▪ Stabilize seasonal market fluctuations

Now examine the real significance of this "Free Trade" globalist plan for America.

1) How can domestic competitiveness improve, when entire industries move offshore?

2) Where is the advantage in developing new technology domestically and transferring it to foreign plants, even if owned by "so called" US national companies?

3) Increase sales and profits, booked by foreign subsidiaries, means that the capital is not repatriated back.

4) If products produced domestically, shipped, and sold to overseas markets, there would be a valid benefit. However, the direction is in reverse.

5) Maintaining cost competitiveness translates into closing domestic facilities.

6) Expansion of business means look overseas because domestic consumers have less money to spend.

7) Oh yes, the holy grail of market share, means last company standing, since domestic markets have reduced sales.

8) Yep, now that existing domestic markets are sinking, move your boat to a different ocean.

9) Seasonal fluctuations means that booms are past profit spikes, the new normal is a perpetual dip.

The Chinese perspective as reported in China Daily from Wang Haifeng, a researcher with the Institute for International Economic Research at the National Development and Reform Commission, needs especial emphasis.

"The size of the value of the trade in goods tells just one side of the story. The other side is that China's export competitiveness, as well as the competitiveness of its trade structure, is far behind the US. The competitive advantage of US exports centers on its technology, quality and brands, with added-value being very significant. China's export prices are much cheaper on average and a large part of its exports are from OEMs (original equipment manufacturers)," Wang said.

When an economic system intentionally transfers their technological advantages, inventions and intellectual edge to a foreign country so that companies can avoid domestic taxation or onerous regulation, the future adverse and inevitable consequences with such relocations, are preordained.

According to World Bank data, in 2011, the US GDP reached $15 trillion while China totaled $7.3 trillion. Just how long will it take this gap to narrow and surpass the US GDP?

If a comparison of gambling revenue is a leading indicator, just look at Chinese Territory Broaden Lead as Global Casino Capital. "It now takes Macau's gamblers just one day to wager what's bet in an entire week on the Las Vegas Strip." To make thing even worse, Nevada's biggest casinos lose $1.35B in 2013.

This example demonstrates the extravagant cash flow and disposable income that is circulating in China. Much of this opulence comes from the pocketbooks of struggling Americans, who buy essential or sustainable goods that have a made in China label.

Tech firms transfer the secrets of their products and software to their Chinese partners as the US government subsidized consumer or the remnant middle class, just deepen this destructive cycle. This absurd economic bargain drives the wealth disparity to irrational levels. That is exactly the objective of the globalists, and the rest of us are mere spectators as the Chinese laugh at our stupidity.

Discuss this essay on the BATR Forum








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server