Posts Tagged ‘American manufacturers’

American Manufacturers and Consumers Funded Chinese Military Buildup

Tuesday, October 19th, 2021

October 20, 2021

Major retailers and thousands of small businesses face a bleak holiday season without Chinese goods to sell because of the long line up of container ships from China waiting to enter major ports to offload their cargo.  

It seems like Americans have to learn lessons the hard way.  During the early stage of the COVID pandemic, there was a serious shortage of masks, ventilators, and other PPE equipment and supplies because we had become dependent on China for these goods. Now, American consumers are experiencing shortages in common consumer products at retail stores, and manufacturers are facing long lead times for components, ICs (chips), and other parts and assemblies. These shortages are projected to get worse before they improve sometime in 2022.

We have become dependent on goods from China over the past 20 years because American manufacturers outsourced manufacturing to China save money and increase their profits. Then, they set up their own manufacturing facilities in China even though they had to submit to transferring their technology to Chinese partners in order set up their plants.

American consumers contributed by choosing to buy cheap Made in China goods instead of supporting fellow Americans through “Buying American.”  The combination of American consumers choosing to buy “Made in China” goods and China’s mercantilist policy of dumping products at prices below cost destroyed thousands of small American manufacturers. More than 60,000 manufacturers were driven out of business in the past 20 years because of the unfair mercantilist policies of China.  This made it more and more difficult for American consumers to find products “Made in USA” to buy. 

As a result, our trade deficit with China escalated from $83.8B in the year 2000 to a high of $418.2B in 2018.  Out deficit dropped to $344.3B in 2019 and down further to $310.2B in 2020 because of the effect of the Trump Administration’s tariffs on certain goods.  Our 2021 trade deficit with China runs at $260B through September, so may exceed 2020.

A November 12, 2019 article titled, “China’s Grand Plan To Take Over The World” in Forbes, by John Mauldin states: “In The Hundred-Year Marathon, Michael Pillsbury marshals a lot of evidence showing the Chinese government has a detailed strategy to overtake the US as the world’s dominant power. They want to do this by 2049, the centennial of China’s Communist revolution.”

Mauldin comments, “Xi’s vision of the Chinese Communist Party controlling the state and eventually influencing and even controlling the rest of the world is clear. These are not merely words for the consumption of the masses. They are instructions to party members.”

He adds, “Over the last 20–30 years, we have equipped the Chinese with almost everything they need to match us, technologically and otherwise. Hundreds of billions of Western dollars have been spent developing China and its state-owned businesses.”

A slide show titled “China wants to rule the world in these industries” reveals the following industries China is targeting:  “ Global logistics and infrastructure, Steel, electric cars, Cobalt mining, rare earth minerals, autonomous vehicles, Artificial Intelligence, Additive manufacturing, Industrial Internet of Things, Advanced Robotics, Cybersecurity, Blockchain, Green energy, smart phones, 6G communications, Semiconductors, Biotech, satellite navigation and digital mapping, Orbital space station construction, Orbital telescope construction, Lunar exploration, Mars exploration, Venus exploration, Jupiter exploration, Asteroid sampling, comet exploration and more.”

Without the transfer of wealth from the U. S. to China, none of this would even be possible. The Chinese Communist Party has used the wealth our manufacturers and consumers sent them to build a military second to none. 

It’s bad enough that we transferred production of goods to China, but in the past few years, we have also been allowing Chinese companies and individuals to buy American companies, real estate property and farmland.  We didn’t allow the Soviet Union to do this during the Cold War, so why are we allowing China? 

In an article published October 13, 2021 titled “The Biden administration lacks a coherent China policy,” Peter Morici states: “President Joe Biden has identified China as the pre-eminent international competitive challenge confronting America, but his administration appears distracted and lacks a credible policy.”

It’s not enough to recognize China as the major international competitor.  We must recognize them as an enemy to our democracy. If we ignore this threat and do nothing about it, we will reap unpleasant if not catastrophic consequences.

In an article titled “Americans vanquished, China triumphant: 2021’s hit war epic doesn’t fit Hollywood script” in The Washington Post of October 16, 2021, Christian Shepherd comments “War epics showing the victories of the People’s Liberation Army have become increasingly common and studios often work closely with the government and army to ensure that their films fit with the official narrative of events.”

He explains, “The Battle at Lake Changjin” was commissioned by the propaganda department of the Chinese Communist Party and made with support from the central military commission and local governments in Beijing and the Hebei and Liaoning provinces.”

He cautions, “However, unlike films made in the early days of the People’s Republic, the emphasis of recent features is less about aiding North Korea and more about resisting America, a shift in tone that scholars suggest reflects Beijing’s growing focus on national security in its confrontation with Washington.”

The movie was released on September 30th and “broke $667 million in ticket sales within two weeks, making it already the fourth-highest-grossing film of the year worldwide.”

The success of this movie suggests to me that the Chinese public are just as eager for a rematch with us as their military. Considering that our military leader’s priority is now being woke-compliant, it’s a strong possibility that our military would be defeated with thousands of casualties thanks to the ”free-trade” supporters that sold our government leaders on the “benefits” of transferring our wealth to China in return for cheap goods from China.

I am concerned that China’s saber rattling in the South China Sea is a prelude to the invasion of Taiwan. Instead of facing a third-world military like we did in the Korean War, our service members will be facing a technically advanced enemy, who can match us weapon for weapon. What if our causalities reach such an unsustainable point that we are forced to sue for peace? We could be faced with recognizing China’s dominance over the Pacific and giving up Hawaii to China as part of a peace settlement.

It’s time for all Americans to wake up to the danger of continuing our dependence on goods from China.  We must decouple our economy from China’s economy, change our trade policies, and rebuild our manufacturing base to the point that we are self-sufficient. There is no simple solution, but I spent several months writing my book, Rebuild Manufacturing – the key to American Prosperity, published in 2017 and available on Amazon.  My book outlines how to rebuild American manufacturing through reshoring, new trade and tax policies, and workforce training and development.  Now, it’s not just time to create prosperity; it’s time to save our national sovereignty and freedom.

Tags:,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Biden Administration Must Maintain Tariffs on Chinese Goods

Tuesday, January 26th, 2021

During his campaign, Biden laid out his economic agenda for the country, called “Build Back Better, which includes a $700 billion investment in procurement and research and development for new technologies such as biotech, clean energy and artificial intelligence.”  The goal is that “the new plan will help create 5 million new jobs.”  As Vice President under President Obama, Biden advocated engagement with China, but changed his tune during the campaign, “calling Chinese President Xi Jinping a “thug. ” While he repeatedly criticized “Trump’s trade and tariff war with China as being ineffective and failing to protect the US economy,” the Biden Administration must maintain the steel and aluminum tariffs order to have any hope of achieving his goal.

During his Jan. 19th confirmation hearing, Biden’s incoming secretary of state, Antony Blinken, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “President Trump was right in taking a tougher approach to China. I disagree very much with the way that he went about it in a number of areas, but the basic principle was the right one. And I think that that’s actually helpful to our foreign policy.”

An article in The Balance reported that the U.S. trade deficit with China was $315.1 billion in 2012, rose to $367.3 billion by 2015 before dropping to $346.8 billion the next year. By 2018, it had increased to $418.9 billion, before falling to $345.2 billion in 2019.”

The big drop was partly due to the 25% tariff on steel imports that President Trump enacted on top of a 10% tariff previously leveraged on aluminum. The tariffs went into effect on July 6, 2018, impacting $34 billion worth of Chinese imports.

The article reported that “The U.S. trade deficit with China for 2020 was $283.6 billion as of November of that year. That’s 18% less than 2019’s $345.2 billion deficit.”

The article explained that “The trade deficit exists because U.S. exports to China were only $110 billion while imports from China were $393.6 billion. The biggest categories of U.S. imports from China are typically computers; cell phones; apparel; and toys, games, and sporting goods.2?? A lot of these imports are from U.S. manufacturers that send raw materials to China for low-cost assembly. Once shipped back to the United States, they are considered imports.” 

In the same vein, Reuters reported that the U. S. trade deficit narrowed in 2019 for the first time in six years, stating “At the height of the U.S.-China trade war last year, Washington slapped tariffs on billions worth of Chinese goods, including consumer products, thumping imports. The politically sensitive goods trade deficit with China plunged 17.6% to $345.6 billion in 2019 “

On November 17, 2020, IndustryWeek published an opinion article by Jeff Ferry, chief economist at the Coalition for a Prosperous America.  Ferry wrote “it’s clear that the Trump administration’s steel tariffs have generated a boom in steel investment and a shift to newer technologies that are creating high-paying jobs for thousands of new steelworkers…The steel tariffs have succeeded by reducing the level of these imports in the U.S. This has allowed domestic steel producers to make needed investments while taking the industry forward with confidence.”  He cited that “U.S. Steel Corporation produced the first ton of steel at a brand-new facility in Fairfield, Alabama, “Nucor Steel has started building a new steel plate mill in Brandenburg, Kentucky, that will employ 400 workers at an average annual salary of $72,800,” and “Commercial Metals Company announced plans to build a second rebar steel mill in Mesa, Arizona, that will employ 185 workers.”

He noted that “With steel imports down, America’s steelmakers have started investing at home. In addition to Nucor and US Steel, companies like Cleveland-Cliffs, Steel Dynamics, CMC, and AK Steel have invested billions of dollars in at least 16 major new projects throughout the nation. The top five US steel companies more than doubled their total annual investments between 2017 to 2019, from $1.5 billion to $4.2 billion.”

It’s been great that the 25% tariffs on steel have saved our critical American steel industry, but the tariffs have not been high enough to benefit most of the manufacturers in the parts producing domestic supply chain.  As a sales representative for American manufacturers that produce molded and other fabricated mechanical parts, we sometimes get feedback on quotes we lose showing that we would need tariffs of between 200 – 300% to be able to compete with Chinese prices, especially for molded rubber and plastic parts.  Sometimes, the finished part price is less than or equal to the prices for the material used to make these parts. Our industry would love for tariffs to be higher and across the board on all products produced in China and imported to the U.S.

As I wrote in my last article of 2020, tariffs have helped manufacturers return to the U.S. through reshoring.  We gained business in 2019 and 2020 from companies returning metal fabrication from China to the U.S. 

In an article on January 22, 2021, “Biden’s Team Could Be as Hawkish on China as Trump’s, Kenneth Rapoza, CPA Industry Analyst, wrote: “The Trump Administration got China right. It set the table on China going forward, changing the age-old establishment centerpiece of waiting for allies to okay things following one diplomatic meeting after the next. Lighthizer, Peter Navarro, Wilbur Ross and Trump himself took action, and showed that tariffs on China do not mean prices will rise across the board. The stock market didn’t collapse because of the trade war. There seems to be good momentum on China.”

I urge the Biden Administration to keep up the momentum on reducing our trade deficit with China and increasing higher-paying manufacturing jobs by maintaining or expanding tariffs on Chinese imported goods. To appease his “Green Deal” followers, he could call the tariffs “Greenhouse Gas Emission fees” because China’s manufacturers depend on polluting coal-fired power plants due to lack of environmental regulations like we have in the U.S. Many American power plants use cleaner-burning natural gas.  The welfare of our economy and our national security depend on using every tactic we have available to thwart China’s goal of becoming the world’s superpower of the 21st Century.

Tags:, ,
Posted in General | No Comments »

Why the Trans Pacific Partnership Would Hurt American Manufacturers

Tuesday, April 30th, 2013

The Obama Administration has continued negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement behind doors closed to the media and without the Congressional involvement that was requested by Congress. Besides being a threat to our national sovereignty as I discussed in a previous blog, it is time to shine the light on another egregious provision that would hurt American manufacturers.

The Buy American Act was passed by Congress in 1933 and required the U.S. government to give preferential treatment to American producers in awarding of federal contracts. The Act restricted the purchase of supplies that are not domestic end products. For manufactured products, the Buy American Act used a two-part test:  first, the article must be manufactured in the U.S., and second, the cost of domestic components must exceed 50 percent of the cost of all its components. Other federal legislation passed since extended similar requirements to third-party purchases that utilize federal funds, such as highway and transit programs.

“Buy American” provisions do not help all U.S. firms equally. Corporations headquartered in the U.S. that offshore most of their manufacturing operations do not benefit from the system designed to promote domestic production in the way that companies with actual U.S. manufacturing operations do. However, strengthening the “Buy American” provisions in our federal procurement system is one of the recommendations I made in my book to benefit American manufacturers and help save American manufacturing.

If a domestic producer offers the government a more expensive bid than a foreign producer, it can still be awarded the contract under certain circumstances, but more recent free trade agreements have granted other nations the same negotiating status as domestic firms.

In certain government procurements, the requirements may be waived if purchasing the material/parts domestically would burden the government with an unreasonable cost, as when the price differential between the domestic product and a identical foreign-sourced product exceeds a certain percentage, or the product is not available domestically in sufficient quantity or quality, or if doing so is not in the public interest. In recent years, the requirements have been increasingly waived to the point that we have lost domestic sources for some defense components and products.

In addition, the President has authority to waive the Act in response to the provision of reciprocal treatment to U.S. producers. Under the 1979 GATT Agreement on Government Procurement, the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and the Korea Free Trade Agreement, access to government procurement by certain U.S. agencies of goods for the other parties to these agreements is granted. Every one of these trade agreements have increased the trade deficit that the U.S. has with the parties to these agreements.

The Obama administration is currently pushing to grant the several nations involved in the Trans-Pacific agreement the same privileged status. What this means is that the TPP’s procurement chapter would require that all companies operating in any country signing the agreement be provided access equal to domestic firms to U.S. government procurement contracts over a certain dollar threshold. To meet this requirement, the U.S. would have to agree to waive Buy America procurement policies for all companies operating in TPP countries.
Supporters of TPP argue that it would be good for America because these rules would apply to all the countries signing the agreement, so U.S. firms would be able to bid on procurements contracts in other countries on a national treatment basis. The question is whether this new access for some U.S. companies to bid on contracts in the TPP countries is a good trade-off for waiving Buy America preferences on U.S. procurement?

Lori Wallach of Public Citizen has written several articles warning about the dangers of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In an article titled, TPP Government Procurement Negotiations:

Buy American Policy Banned, a Net Loss for the U.S., she points out that the total U.S. procurement market is more than seven times the size of the combined procurement market of the current TPP negotiating parties: Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. But the United States already has trade deals with procurement provisions with six of these countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Peru and Singapore. Removing these countries would mean that the U.S. procurement market is 24 times the size of the total “new” TPP procurement market.

She concludes “the size of the new procurement markets that the TPP may open for the United States is in the order of $53 billion (national) to $72 billion (total), which is a terrible trade for giving up the U.S procurement market of $556 billion (federal) to $1.7 trillion (total).”

In addition, she notes that the TPP procurement rules would constrain how our national and state governments may use our tax dollars in local construction projects and purchase of goods and limit what specifications Governments can require for goods and services, as well as the qualifications for bidding companies.

She warns that if we do not conform our domestic policies to the TPP terms, the U.S. government would be subject to lawsuits before foreign tribunals empowered to authorize trade sanctions against the U.S. until our policies changed. “Also, any “investor” that happens to be incorporated in one of these countries would be empowered to launch its own extra-judicial attack on our domestic laws in World Bank and UN arbitral tribunals with respect to changes to procurement contracts with the U.S. federal government.”

A letter from Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) and 68 other Congressional Reps to President Obama on May 3, 2012 states in part, “We are concerned about proposals we understand are under consideration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations that could significantly limit Buy American provisions and as a result adversely impact American jobs, workers, and manufacturers…We do not believe this approach is in the best interest of U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers. Of special concern is the prospect that firms established in TPP countries, such as the many Chinese firms in Vietnam, could obtain waivers from Buy American policies. This could result in larger sums of U.S. tax dollars being invested to strengthen other countries’ manufacturing sectors, rather than our own.”

On November 30, 2012, 24 Senators sent a letter to President Obama outlining guidelines for the TPP and calling for Congressional consultation for the TPP. The letter urged that the TPP:

“Maintain “Buy American” government procurement requirements. The American people, through their elected officials, should not be prohibited from establishing government procurement policies that prioritize job creation in the United States. We hope that you will direct USTR negotiators to ensure that any TPP not restrict “Buyer American” and ”Buy Local” government procurement policies at the Federal or sub-federal level.

Require strong Rules of Origin. The Rules of Origin in the TPP should ensure that only signatories to the TPP will benefit from its increased market access and other provisions so that employment opportunities in the U.S. may be expanded. Non-TPP members must not be allowed to use weak rules of origin as a backdoor way to enter the U.S. market and further depress U.S. job prospects.

Ensure that State-Owned and State-Supported Commercial Enterprises (SOEs) operate on a level playing field.  Given that SOEs are more common in the other TPP countries than in the U.S., the TPP should require that SOEs competing with private U.S. enterprises operate and make decisions on a commercial basis.  The agreement should also incorporate a reporting requirement so that countries have to provide information on the operation of their SOEs in other TPP countries on a regular basis.”

Country of Original labeling is another one of the recommendations I’ve written about in previous blog articles and is the main recommendation of Alan Uke in his book Buying Back America. This would help American consumers make choices when they purchase consumer goods and allow professional procurement specialists in industry and government to choose to support American manufacturers through “Buying American.”

The TPP treaty would exacerbate our trade deficit problem and make it even harder for American manufacturers to compete in the global marketplace. Instead of weakening “Buy American” requirements through additional trade agreements such as TPP, we need to strengthen the requirements.

This drastic curtailment of “Buy American” procurement provisions is another reason why we must make sure Congress rejects any fast-track authority the Obama administration seeks to invoke when it comes time to get final congressional approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Please join me in opposing granting fast-track authority by signing the petition at the American Jobs Alliance website and contacting your representatives directly at http://act.americanjobsalliance.com/5516/tell-obama-no/

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Manufacturing, Trade Policy | 1 Comment »

Chinese Innovation Mercantilism is Hurting American Manufacturers

Tuesday, December 11th, 2012

On Wednesday, December 5, 2012, Robert D. Atkinson, President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), testified before the House Science Committee Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight in a hearing on “The Impact of International Technology Transfer on American Research and Development.” His testimony was based on his book, Innovation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage (Yale University Press, 2012) and the ITIF report, “Enough is Enough:  Confronting Chinese Innovation Mercantilism,” released February 2012.

Atkinson began his testimony by stating, “A nation’s investments in research and development (R&D) are vital to its ability to develop the next-generation technologies, products, and services that keep a country and its firms competitive in global markets. Until recently, corporate R&D was generally not very mobile, certainly not in comparison to manufacturing. But in a “flat world” companies can increasingly locate R&D activities anywhere skilled researchers are located…. the United States has seen its relative competitive advantage in R&D and advanced technology industries decline. While the United States still leads the world in aggregate R&D dollars invested, on a per-capita basis it is falling behind.”

He testified that the “decline in America’s innovative edge is due to a number of factors, not the least of which are failures of federal policy, such as an unwillingness to make permanent and expand the R&D tax credit, limitations on high-skill immigration, and stagnant federal funding for R&D. But the decline is also related to unfair practices by other nations that collectively ITIF has termed as ‘innovation mercantilism.’”

The ITIF report cited above states that these policies “include currency manipulation, relatively high tariffs (three times higher than U.S. tariffs), and tax incentives for exports.” In addition, “some policies help Chinese firms while discriminating against foreign establishments in China. These policies include “discriminatory government procurement; controls on foreign purchases designed to force technology transfer to China; land grants and rent subsidies to Chinese-owned firms; preferential loans from banks; tax incentives for Chinese-owned firms; cash subsidies; benefits to state-owned enterprises; generous export financing; government-sanctioned monopolies; a weak and discriminatory patent system; joint-venture requirements; forced technology transfer; intellectual property theft; cyber-espionage to steal intellectual property (IP); domestic technology standards; direct discrimination against foreign firms; limits on imports and sales by foreign firms; onerous regulatory certification requirements; and limiting exports of critical materials in order to deny foreign firms key inputs.”

The report explains that “in the last decade China has accumulated $3.2 trillion worth of foreign exchange reserves and now enjoys the world’s largest current account balance. In 2011, it ran a $276.5 billion trade surplus with the United States. This ‘accomplishment’ stems largely from the fact that China is practicing economic mercantilism on an unprecedented scale. China seeks not merely competitive advantage, but absolute advantage. In other words, China’s strategy is to win in virtually all industries, especially advanced technology products and services… China’s policies represent a departure from traditional competition and international trade norms. Autarky [a policy of national self-sufficiency], not trade, defines China’s goal. As such China’s economic strategy consists of two main objectives: 1) develop and support all industries that can expand exports, especially higher value-added ones, and reduce imports; 2) and do this in a way that ensures that Chinese-owned firms win.”

The report states that “because China is so large and because its distortive mercantilist policies are so extensive, these policies have done significant damage to the United States and other economies…The theft of intellectual property and forced technology transfer reduce revenues going to innovators, making it more difficult for them to reinvest in R&D. The manipulation of standards and other import restrictions balkanizes global markets, keeping them smaller than they otherwise would be, thereby raising global production costs…if Chinese policies continue to be based on absolute advantage and mercantilism…the results will be more of the same: the loss of U.S. industrial and high-tech output, and the jobs and GDP growth that go with it.”

Chinese mercantilist policies are unprecedented in their scope and size. Atkinson testified, “A principal arrow in China’s innovation mercantilist quiver is to force requirements on foreign companies with respect to intellectual property, technology transfer, or domestic sourcing of production as a condition of market access. While China’s accession agreement to the WTO contains rules forbidding it from tying foreign direct investment to requirements to transfer technology to the country, the rules are largely ignored.”

He added, “Rather than doing the hard work to build its domestic technology industries, or better yet focus on raising productivity in low-producing Chinese industries, China decided it would be much easier and faster simply to take the technology from foreign companies… China’s government unabashedly forces multinational companies in technology-based industries—including IT, air transportation, power generation, high-speed rail, agricultural sciences, and electric automobiles—to share their technologies with Chinese state-owned or influenced enterprises as a condition of operating in the country.”

The ITIF report explains that in 2006, “China made the strategic decision to shift to a “China Inc.” development model focused on helping Chinese firms, often at the expense of foreign firms. Chinese leaders decided that attracting commodity-based production facilities from multinational corporations (MNCs) was no longer the goal…The path to prosperity and autonomy was now to be ‘indigenous innovation’…”

The document “advocating this shift was ‘The Guidelines for the Implementation of the National Medium- and Long-term Program for Science and Technology Development (2006-2020)’…to ‘create an environment for encouraging innovation independently, promote enterprises to become the main body of making technological innovation and strive to build an innovative-type country.’”

Some 402 technologies, from intelligent automobiles to integrated circuits to high performance computers were included so that China could seek the capability to master virtually all advanced technologies, with the focus on Chinese firms gaining those capabilities through indigenous innovation.

However, China is not alone in trying to force the transfer of technology and R&D from foreign multinationals ? Indonesia, Malaysia, India, Portugal, and Venezuela have the same goal.

Why do so many nations engine in innovation mercantilism? Atkinson testified that there are two principle reasons. “First, these nations have embraced a particular and fundamentally limited model of economic growth that holds that the best way to grow an economy is through exports and shifting production to higher-value (e.g., innovation-based) production. Moreover, they don’t want to wait the 20 to 50 years it will take to naturally move up the value chain through actions like improving education, research capabilities, and infrastructure, as nations like the United States did. They want to get there now and the only way to do this is to short-circuit the process through innovation mercantilism. This explains much of China’s economic policies. The Chinese know that to achieve the level of technological sophistication and innovation that America enjoys will take them at least half a century if they rely on only their own internal actions. So they are intent on stealing and pressuring as much of American (and other advanced nations’) technology as they can to their own companies. If you can’t build it, steal it, is their modus operendi.”

Atkinson added that the second reason why these nations do this is because they don’t believe in the rule of law and the principles of free trade like Western nations and much of Europe do. These nations also “work on the ‘guilt’ of Western, developed nations. The narrative goes like this: the West has used its imperialist powers to gain its wealth, including at the expense of poor, developing nations and now it wants to “pull the ladder” up after it. This means turning a blind eye to intellectual property and giving our technology, including pharmaceutical drugs, to nations almost for free. After all, we are rich and they are poor because we are rich.”

The reality is that forced technology transfer is enabling China and other nations to gain global market share. It is doing “considerable harm to U.S. technology companies and to the U.S. economy, if for no other reason than reducing their profits and ability to reinvest in the next wave of innovation.”

Atkinson posed the question, “So what should the U.S. government do? He responded that “this is a difficult question because if there were easy solutions, they would have been done by now.” He recommended the following actions:

  • Try to do more through conventional trade dispute channels and expand funding for the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office (USTR) so it can do more.
  • Ensure that future bilateral trade and investment treaties (BIT) contain strong and enforceable provisions against forced technology and R&D transfer.
  • Congress should make it clear that it will not judge any administration by whether a BIT with China is concluded, but rather by if the United States made a strong effort to conclude a treaty that provided full protection against mercantilist practices like forced transfer of R&D.
  • Congress should pass legislation that allows firms to ask the Department of Justice for an exemption to coordinate actions regarding technology transfer and investment to other nations.
  • Congress should exclude mercantilists from the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).

Finally, he recommended that the United States actively explore alternatives to the WTO and  pursue a two-pronged trade strategy, continuing as best it can to improve conventional trade organizations like the WTO, but also creating alternative “play-by-the-rules” clubs of like-minded countries.

He concluded his testimony stating, “Pressured or mandatory technology transfer by other nations has, is, and will continue to negatively impact American R&D and innovation capabilities. It’s time for the federal government to step up its actions to fight this corrosive mercantilist practice.”

Curbing Chinese mercantilism must become a key priority of our trade policy if we want to address this serious threat to American manufacturers and the U. S. economy.

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Economy, Innovation, Manufacturing, National security, Outsourcing, Trade | 2 Comments »