I think a lot of it comes down to that China has a unified, integrated pro-China-manufacturing mercantilist policy that is very aggressive and very successful. It's part of their regular Five Year Plan, and they take it seriously.

Anybody remember about 10 years back when China cornered the leather market globally in order to accomplish mercantilist (monopolistic) objectives? That's the tip of the iceberg!

China manages economic war just like it prosecutes any other kind of war -- by the rules of Sun Tzu's Art of Warfare.

"Shanghai wasn't built in a day." Chinese planners waited patiently for the arrival in secret of the first nibble from Henry Kissinger in 1970, gracefully accepted Kissinger's acquiescence to their demand to take China's permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council in 1971, enthusiastically welcomed the historic visit of  Richard Nixon in 1972, welcomed the real deal when George H. W. Bush came to Beijing in 1974 as President Ford's 'Chief of USA liaison office to the People's Republic of China' (before diplomatic recognition of China by USA), gracefully accepted the USA's bowing to reality when switching diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Beijing in 1979 ... introduced post-Mao reforms under Long March veteran and political genius, Deng Xiaoping, throughout the 1980s ... made limits to reform perfectly clear at Tiananmen Square in 1989 ...  took note of the coming era of corporate globalization and acted accordingly, especially through Hong Kong, to continue to improve standard of living for millions of Chinese ... received 'Most Favored Nation' status under the United States-China Act of 1993 ...  absorbed Hong Kong in 1997 ... continued to take note of the coming era of corporate globalization, acting accordingly  ... set loose the forces of competition within a system of state capitalism ... joined the WTO in 1997 ... lobbied the U.S. Congress for the China Trade Act which was enacted in 1999 ... infiltrated the WTO and the U.S. Congress ... hired the best math-type business analysts ever, sent their best and brightest to study economics at Harvard and Cornell and MIT ... and they have accomplished what they set out to do.

I hope this doesn't seem critical of China. I am just being descriptive. Frankly, I admire China. China is very strong, truly a worthy adversary.

They have defeated the United States, without having to fight the United States military -- much as the British, a century earlier, essentially conquered Imperial China without a single major battle having to be fought. (Would it then follow that those in Congress who collaborate in the foreign devils' rule are ... what? ... quislings?   )

We aren't the only nation that is chafing under the Chinese yoke! Just a week or two back, Kyrgyzistan stopped the export of slurry and ore in order to prevent China's taking bullion production jobs and profits away from them. This move was years in the making, involving the remarkable existence (almost side-by-side) of both a USA and a Russian airbase in northern Kyrgyzistan. It ain't easy to demand your rights when dealing with the People's Republic of China, (which shares a long border with Kyrgyzistan), but the first step (for USA) is to make certain that no member of Congress dare oppose (as did every GOP member of Congress in 2010) disclosure of political contributions from foreign corporations (= governments, in a mercantilist system).

I hate to introduce politics into an EP economics blog. But, dammit, this is fundamental to all the China issues, and no one dares address it! If you want to oppose anti-American effects of the mercantilist policy of the People's Republic of China, you have to oppose current congressional Republicans. Going deeper, you have no choice but to dedicate yourself to the decline and fall of the Republican National Committee as it currently exists. It's as simple as that.

I am prepared to document my claims:

OpenCongress showing party-line vote in Senate

 AYES for DISCLOSE, only Democrats, including Sen. Sanders (I, VT),

 zero Democrats abstaining

                                              

       

      DISCLOSE failed in Senate despite a majority, due to Republican filibuster

                                     (cloture maneuver without super-majority of 60)

 

                                   NAYS to DISCLOSE, only Republicans

                                                    except 2 who abstained

 

OpenCongress showing party-line vote in House

 AYES for DISCLOSE, only Democrats,

 2 Democrats abstaining

 

                        

          DISCLOSE passed in the House despite Republican opposition

                                              

                                        

                                    NAYS All Republicans voted NAY

                                                except 6 who abstained

 

 

 

Observers say it all came down to one simple thing: opposition from the Republican National Committee! Threats to withdraw campaign money and media support! And not one patriot out of the whole dang bunch of them!

See, CitzenVox.org's "Partisan Politics At Its Worst"

See also, NYT archive (as of 7 September 2011)
 

And, if you can't stomach Obama and the Democrats, it's past time to join and support ANY political party other than either of the two major parties. I mean, if you find yourself between a rock and a hard place, isn't that time to move yourself?

OTHERWISE, if you want to cling to your delusions about the GOP -- with the notable and praiseworthy exception of Buddy Roemer -- go ahead ... make Hu's day!

But PUH-LEEZE stop your smiley-faced idiocy of "let's all just buy American" and your belly-aching about the yuan's peg-to-the-dollar!

You may have a different point of view, of course. You may think that we should just monkey-do China, or at least Singapore. Many Republicans openly advocate such fundamentally anti-American policies.

The problem is that our democratic (small d) and republican (small r) traditions are fundamentally opposed to a mercantilist monopolistic type of government (Communist corporatism). Republicans and some Democrats talk up Singapore as the 21st Century utopian model, but most Americans (I hope) are not interested. America is the land of competition -- of free enterprise where the ideal is a transparent and stable tax and anti-trust environment that fosters success of efficient small businesses free of all preference systems.

That's why, IMO, we won't get anywhere belly-aching about China while doing nothing to clean our own house. We need either:

(1) An across-the-board tariff (15%) to level the playing field so that USA producers will no longer be forced by anti-American politicians to subsidize foreign competition;

OR,

(2) What Robert Oak has proposed, namely, renegotiating all all FTAs along realistic lines, including VATs at our borders.

(The reason that I prefer ABT is for the sake of predictable and stable business environment, rather than playing the mercantilist game which inevitably reduces to ultimately inefficient government intervention in every major business decision ... but I guess if we live in a mercantilist world, then we have to play by those rules.)

"You pays your money and you takes your choice."
 

BTW:  On Singapore as a 'low-tax' capitalist paradise, see David Cay Johnston's Reuters blog, Think Singapore is a 'low-tax' haven? Think again