Thomas Friedman: Red China? No, Green China

Friedman, who is definitely a globalist, can trumpet China all he wants but Red China is still a Communist country with a protectionist economy. Twenty million manufacturing jobs have left this country in the past thirty years and at least half the products on American store shelves were made in Red China, mostly by U.S.-originated companies. Unbelievable! Our nation has been in decline since the eighties and it's no coincidence that is when the massive exporting of American industry began in earnest.

I realize that too much "From Beirut to Jerusalem" would make Tom a dull boy; HOWEVER, I think it is his most important work. Were I queen of the world, I would decree that he re-iterate daily the contents of "B to J" and sell it as required reading for the President and all advisors to him.

I would highly suggest that everyone reads "Lexus and the Olive Tree". I read it last year for the first time, and the published date of the book was from 1999 (before 9/11/2001) It warned of Osama, collapse of financial institutions, etc. .....It should be required reading for all.

I cannot highly recommend this book enough!

I am aware of the highly publicized green efforts by the Chinese. But take a look at the big picture. They are on the brink of a total ecological breakdown due to water, air, and other forms of polution. They may never be able to reverse the situation without losing the economic advantage they now possess.

First, to Mr. Dunlap: having lived in China a sumber of years (though not currently), I can attest to your observation that China is a communist country -- partly, these days. There is private ownership were there was none before, for example. That means there are privately-employed workers as well, instead of every person having an "iron rice bowl." And yes, their economy is protectionist, there is heavy subsidization for both public and private entities, the legal system -- such as it is -- in often stacked against foreigners, including foreign investors, etc.

Regarding protectionism in particular, aren't we -- I assume you're American, too, as I am? -- protectionist as well? Exhibit A: agricultural subsidies. Whether those subsidies are "good" or "bad" is another question; my only point is that we, too, engage in protectionist practices. Another example is the "Buy American" provision of the stimulus package. That provision, as you undoubtedly know, does have an escape valve in that if a buyer can find what's need for more than 25% less abroad, then he can buy abroad. Yet that is, in effect, a protectionist tariff for American manufacturers.

Again, that may be good or it may be bad; it certainly has generated plenty of heat.

As for the jobs that have been sent abroad, yes, of course that's happened. However, there's one point I can't recall ever hearing from a single person complaining about this historical (and ongoing) fact: that is, *American* managers are making *deliberate* decisions for the sake of the bottom line to drop Americans from the employment rolls. Foreign countries are delighted with this, of course, but they can't very well *force* Americans to fire Americans then hire, say, Chinese or Indians; they can only hope. So if blame is to be assigned, then let's assign some of it to our fellow Americans.

But should we blame them? That's less clear. If, say, a publicly-traded company boosts its bottom line through such strategies, then its investors -- stockholders -- benefit financially. And if they have more money in their pocket, then somewhere along the line, they'll spend more money. Even if they buy an imported product, in buying it in America, they are supporting the American sales clerk and stocker, the truck driver who delivered it, and so on -- a ripple effect. So, while we may conclude, glumly, that jobs are fleeing offshore, as they are, it's also true that other jobs are at least preserved and perhaps even added. (I'm speaking of normal times, not the present darkly-clouded economic setting.)

But now to get to the point of this article. It's analyzing and, ultimately, agreeing with Friedman's contention that unless we fast-track green development, we run a great risk of eating China's dust on the green front.

It's not about China being communist and protectionist.

It's not about American jobs being relocated outside the U.S.

Now, this article is subject to criticism, as is Friedman himself (whom I admire greatly, by the way), but not because China is communist and protectionist nor because American jobs have been sent abroad. If other articles I've read are true, as recently as yesterday, then there's another side to China's "Green Revolution" or, more properly speaking, a dark underbelly: China will also have to build more coal-powered plants pell-mell to have *any* hope of keeping up with its energy demands -- thereby negating some of whatever progress it makes on the green front. That's a criticism based on the article's thesis.

The points you raise, Mr. Dunlap, are perfectly valid ones, ones not merely worthy of reasoned discussion and debate, but demanding such. Just not in the context of this particular article.

Thank you, you answered the question I have been searching for which was whether or not to place keywords when blog commenting. mirc . mirc indir