The Donald: Punish the Chinese For Bombing Pearl Harbor

Serial deadbeat Donald Trump is getting a lot of attention by arguing for a trade war with China, but his strategy sounds mighty familiar. The Donald, whose ability to draw credulous media coverage is matched only by his ability to destroy the wealth of his investors, isn't opposed to the Asiatic hordes; he's just aware of them, and has been for more than two decades, since the heady days when Trump was on his first wife and America was on its first Oriental trade nemesis.

Here's how the short-fingered vulgarian described the threat to Stuart Varney a few months back:

Can you imagine Ronald Reagan making that statement? Can you imagine almost any president making that statement?

China is succeeding. They are rebuilding their country off our money. I mean, they're -- we are making so many products in China, paying China so much money for those products, that you go to these Chinese cities, they are rebuilding cities and they're building new cities that are bigger than any of our cities.

It's absolutely insane to have made that statement.

VARNEY: But -- so what are you going to do about this? Obviously we have got a trade problem with China, but we have got news today that GE is getting a $2 billion investment out of China, and news also today that Saginaw, Michigan, is now -- China is the number-one employer in Saginaw, Michigan.

I mean, what...

TRUMP: Sure. That is a tiny, little place that is wonderful, but they are using that just to show how nice they are, when, in fact, they are not looking for our good.

And they shouldn't be. They should be looking for their good.

VARNEY: What do we do about it?

TRUMP: And they have people that are very, very smart.

What I would do?

VARNEY: Yes.

TRUMP: You have such a huge deficit with -- trade deficit with China. Their currency is artificially low. And, see, we have fallen into the Chinese trap. We are now destroying the dollar in order to try and compete with them. We shouldn't be doing that. We should be keeping the dollar strong and stable and we should tax Chinese products.

And the people that talk about free trade, we don't have free -- I am a big free trade believer, by the way -- but we don't have free trade with China.

China is, literally, going to destroy this company -- this country. If we don't get smart quickly, China will destroy our country.

VARNEY: Now...

TRUMP: And they will do it with a smile. And our people have no idea what is happening.

Since then, Trump has doubled down on the China warnings, recently telling Larry Kudlow that the issue has become so serious he's considering a presidential campaign: "For the first time, I’m seriously thinking about doing it," Trump said. "If I did it, and if I win, we will be respected again."

But if you've been asleep since the late 1980s (you didn't miss much), you might be confused to hear The Donald attacking the wrong country. In that less thought-tormented age -- when America was staggering from a recession said to be the worst since the 1930s, the Trump empire was a broken field of bad debts and bankruptcies, and the mores of the inscrutable east were celebrated in verse and song -- the threat to America's existence was not China but Japan. Trump wanted everybody to know it. The situation was so dire he was even considering running for president. From a 1990 Playboy interview:

We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about fifteen minutes if it weren't for us. Our "allies" are making billions screwing us.

PLAYBOY: How do you feel about Japan's economic pre-eminence?

TRUMP: Japan gets almost seventy percent of its oil from the Persian Gulf, relies on ships led back home by our destroyers, battleships, helicopters, frog men. Then the Japanese sail home, where they give the oil to fuel their factories so that they can knock the hell out of General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. Their openly screwing us is a disgrace. Why aren't they paying us? The Japanese cajole us, they bow to us, they tell us how great we are and then they pick our pockets. We're losing hundreds of billions of dollars a year while they laugh at our stupidity.
The Japanese have their great scientists making cars and VCRs and we have our great scientists making missiles so we can defend Japan. Why aren't we being reimbursed for our costs? The Japanese double-screw the U.S., a real trick: First they take all our money with their consumer goods, then they put it back in buying all of Manhattan. So either way, we lose.

PLAYBOY: You're opposed to Japanese buying real estate in U.S.?

TRUMP: I have great respect for the Japanese people and list many of them as great friends. But, hey, if you want to open up a business in Japan, good luck. It's virtually impossible. But the Japanese can buy our buildings, our Wall Street firms, and there's virtually nothing to stop them. In fact, bidding on a building in New York is an act of futility, because the Japanese will pay more than it's worth just to screw us. They want to own Manhattan.
Of course, I shouldn't even be complaining about it, because I'm one of the big beneficiaries of it. If I ever wanted to sell any of my properties, I'd have a field day. But it's an embarrassment! I give great credit to the Japanese and their leaders, because they have made our leaders look totally second rate.

PLAYBOY: A group of Japanese visitors to New York was recently asked if there were anything in the U.S. they would like to buy. The answer: towels.

TRUMP: That's fair trade: They'll take the towels and we'll buy their cars. It doesn't sound like a good deal to me. They have totally outsmarted the American politician; they have no respect for us, because they're getting a free ride. Of course, it's not just the Japanese or the Europeans—the Saudis, the Kuwaitis walk all over us.

Back then, Trump had reasons to oppose the Japanese. A mysterious Mr. Ito had beaten him in an auction of Sam’s piano and the legendary high roller Akio Kashiwagi died owing him a boatload of yen.

But what's his beef with China? Is it the ancient Chinese secret of trying to depreciate the national currency? Everybody does that; why unleash Chang on China?

In any event, the similarities in his complaints are striking -- from the he-man obsession with our country's not appearing tough enough to the Hawley-Smoot plan to restore prosperity through tariffs to the "I'm a free trader, but..." phrasing.

Then as now the xenophobia of Trump and others had a mirror in the Asiaphilic stylings of liberals. During the eighties, well-thinking people were sure America needed to copy Japan's vertical integration and workplace calisthenics. Today, old China hands like Nicholas Kristof and Thomas L. Friedman covet China's autocratic environmental policies and one-child civic sensibility. In many ways Trump's straightforward Yellow Peril demagoguery is less creepy than its enlightened liberal counterpart. And don't forget that while the Obama Administration may not be macho enough for Trump, it's done a pretty good job of getting the trade war started.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Since then, Trump has doubled down on the China warnings, recently telling Larry Kudlow that the issue has become so serious he's considering a presidential campaign: "For the first time, I’m seriously thinking about doing it," Trump said. "If I did it, and if I win, we will be respected again."

    Donald, if the American people were stupid enough to elect you president, not even Somalia would respect us and I wouldn't blame them.

    Run Donald, run. Please spend your money on a quest for the presidency. You can hire me (a bargain at $1,300,000 a year) to bring in the libertarian vote.

  • -||

    IN A WORLD where some people still respect Sarah Palin, anything is possible.

  • ||

    Presidential primaries are quite entertaining; they should call them "Narcissists on Parade" and go the full-blown reality TV mode with confessionals and drinking and everything.

  • H man||

    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

  • Almanian||

    NOTHING is over until WE decide it is!

  • Steve||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI

  • Almanian||

    Shorter The Donald: Watch the next season of The Apprentice! Oh, and China = The Boogeyman.

    Watch The Apprentice!

  • Au H20||

    Caption: Donald Trump graduated, took over his father's business, and ran it into the ground.

    Tim Cavanaugh is now a gynecologist in Hollywood.

    Senator and Misses Yunioshi.

  • Rock Action ||

    Edward Van Halen is temporarily "relaxing" in Bellevue Mental Ward and making progress

  • BakedPenguin||

    More like Betty Ford. But I guess that wouldn't have been as funny at the end of the video...

  • ||

    Well, hopefully the Chinese will run their American subsidiary better than Donald did.

  • MWG||

    Trump, another 'titan of industry' who doesn't know shit about economics.

  • ||

    His main business is the promotion of Donald Trump. In that he is genius.

  • Hugh Akston||

    I don't know what it would be like to live life as a person who conceives of every foreign policy question as a dick-measuring contest.

    So we buy a bunch of Chinese-made iPods and China buys a bunch of US government debt. At least the iPods will be worth something in five years.

  • Goobs||

    On the one hand, there is a point about "Hey we are defending these countries and not getting paid for it", but, eh.

    On the other hand, complaining that some other country "Takes our money with their consumer goods" is just too silly a phrase to pass up.

    This is also why I think the trade deficit is such a stupid obsession. If I spend $100,000 on some new Japanese automation for my factory, sure, there is a trade deficit. But with that machinery, I can now generate enormous wealth from gains in productivity. Everybody wins.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Evidently GM and I have a trade deficit...I paid them tens of thousands for my car and they have paid me nothing. TARIFF!!!!

    Bonus Irony: It is actually a used japanese car bought at chevy dealer so there is that.

    Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son.

    LIKE HELL IT ISN'T

  • Rather||

    Economics question, since I was trying to write about this subject:

    A second issue was also now at the fore -- the dollar. The price of gold had been fixed at $35 an ounce since the Roosevelt administration. But the growing U.S. balance-of-payments deficit meant that foreign governments were accumulating large amounts of dollars -- in aggregate volume far exceeding the U.S. government's stock of gold. These governments, or their central banks, could show up at any time at the "gold window" of the U.S. Treasury and insist on trading in their dollars for gold, which would precipitate a run. The issue was not theoretical. In the second week of August 1971, the British ambassador turned up at the Treasury Department to request that $3 billion be converted into gold.

    Can China call us on our debt?

  • Tman||

    To answer you question I give you PJ O'Rourke-

    A U.S. dollar is an IOU from the Federal Reserve Bank. It's a promissory note that doesn't actually promise anything. It's not backed by gold or silver. If Hu Jintao brought a $100 bill with him to Washington, and if he took the $100 bill over to the Federal Reserve, what he got for it was a hundred dollars. He may have gotten it in twenties, tens, or dimes. But all the Fed will give anyone for their American money is other American money. Hu Jintao is stuck with his IOU.

    Maybe America's policymakers are worried that China will spend that cash and this will somehow damage sectors of the American economy. I spent three weeks eating Chinese regional delicacies, and I'll admit that, if the Chinese spend all their U.S. dollars, our pet shops will be stripped bare. But let us consider the parable of Japan in the 1980s. Japan kept giving America radios, TVs, stereos, and cars, and we kept giving Japan money. The Japanese didn't want anything America made except Michael Jackson tapes, and we didn't even make the valuable part--the tape cassette part--of those. So the Japanese decided to buy America itself. They bought office complexes, hotels, and golf courses. The Japanese bid up the price of American real estate until the bubble did what bubbles do. By the 1990s America had all the radios, TVs, stereos, and cars, and all the office complexes, hotels, and golf courses, and all the money.

    On the other hand, maybe America's policymakers are worried that the current account deficit will cause the dollar to be devalued. In that case they can quit worrying about Chinese exports because these will be as expensive as hell, which will cause rampant inflation, and the policymakers can worry about that.

    The Chinese are doing our work for us, making the things we want. They're giving us zero percent financing on the money we owe them. And, on top of that, the Chinese are underwriting America's national debt. Somebody has to. Between Republican spending and Democratic campaign promises for more spending plus John Q. Public's penchant for saving bupkis, America isn't going to do anything about America's national debt. It's up to China to buy U.S. Treasury securities.

    This article is five years old but still holds true today-

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....7ypyxm.asp

  • Mr. FIFY||

    His "a Message to Redistributionists" was/still is funny/poignant.

  • l0b0t||

    No, Nixon closed the "gold window" in 1971. As a fun exercise, let's imagine that it is 1971 and you have $1000 in US currency. If you were to convert that $1000 to gold (1971 price approx. $41 per oz.) you would have about 24 1/2oz. of gold. At today's prices ($1342.50 per oz.) your gold is worth $32891.25. If you chose instead to hang on to that $1000.00, today (thanks to annual inflation of roughly 4.4%) it is worth about $180.

  • sevo||

    Related: The OPEC oil-price "increase" in the early '70s.
    Not really. They merely kept the price pegged on gold; the US devalued the dollar.

  • Rather||

    @l0b0t @ Tman
    I was aware we went off the gold standard in 71 but I'm trying to understand what secures the value. T-man, that article is current as when in was written in 2006. I can see why China would not call us on our debt due mutualism in our symbiotic relationship but what prevents it from happening?

    Let's say an enemy country started buying our debt, others jumped-in and they decide to all call it. Does nothing prevent it?

  • sevo||

    "...I'm trying to understand what secures the value...."
    Not sure I'm answering the question, but nothing "secures" the value of US currency other than general agreement, if you will.
    If an "enemy state" chose to buy and then cash US debt, they'd end up with US dollars. If the intent was to damage the US economy, it'd probably that effect, since the gov't would have to print dollars to pay it, but they'd be harming themselves at the same time, reducing the value (by inflation) of their holdings.
    The winners would be those holding value in other currencies or probably commodities like gold.

  • DRM||

    They can cash them in when they mature, and not buy more, but T-bill, T-note, or T-bond, they can't demand payment any sooner than scheduled.

    So, if an enemy country bought a bunch of US debt, they'd drive down the cost of US borrowing in the auctions where they were buying the securities. If they then didn't buy new ones when the old ones matured, the cost of borrowing would rise to what it would be if they'd never entered the market for US securities at all. As long as the US didn't make the mistake of assuming the reduced cost of borrowing was a permanent phenomenon, all the action would actually do is leave the US in better financial shape.

    If we were stupid enough to plan on the assumption that the cheaper borrowing cost was permanent, there would be a bit of readjustment required. But even that wouldn't do anything more than mildly disrupt plans.

    In the specific case of China no longer buying our debt, what happens? Well, they've got about $900 billion of the stuff, which is about 6% of our debt. So, we offer slightly higher interest, and as that 6% retires, the same people (mostly Americans) who bought the other 94% of the debt buy a bit more at the better return. Yawn.

    The amount the US is in debt is a problem. The amount the US is in debt to China is basically irrelevant.

  • ||

    I understand what you're getting at, but you're mixing apples and oranges. At today's prices, the $1,000 is worth $1,000. You can't take the current dollar valuation of the gold and then deflate the dollars but not the dollar valuation of the gold.

  • Heartbroken||

    shit! This confuses me more- the $1000 now has less buying power than it did in 71. Conversely, the gold has more monetary value now than it did in 71-so the dollars are deflated and not worth 1k, right?

  • ||

    This is slightly relevant.

  • Rather||

    He's into American television-I wonder if he googles himself

  • sevo||

    I notice the only "solution" Trump offers is a threat to run for office.
    Dunno, maybe the thought of dealing with the dipstick would be enough to cause the Chinese to change some policies, but other than that, WIH does he propose?

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I've never understood where Trump got the reputation for being a businessman that others should listen to or want to work for. The guy has been a failure every where he has been, and the only reason he has anything is because he was born into wealth (not that there's anything wrong with that). It's really quite amazing.

  • ||

    Narcissism and Self Promotion. People are fascinated with the guy. Since he is famous and rich, people assume he is good at what he does. Which he is--only, what he does is more theater than business.

  • Jay||

    If the banks would just stop lending him money so he couldn't destroy any more wealth with his brain-dead hotel-condominium developments, America would be #1 again in an instant!

  • ||

    China: The cause of, and the solution to, all of the U.S.A.'s problems.

  • Edna Crabapple||

    +1 for a perfectly cromulent comment

  • hmm||

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I've been meaning to write something about China itself... not Trump's opinion, but about this fear meme going around.

    This is part of it, but this idea that China will be taking over. Just look at the growth!

    I think... need more research and proof, but think the economic signs are actually going to trend negatively for many reasons, the most obvious of which is central control, but I think the proof is in their problems with inflation, no domestic investment from their own people, no real domestic economy, only exports... which will get better as the US climbs, but I think the underlying nature is they are much weaker than it seems.

    But as we know - fear, fear, fear - it's what works!

  • J||

    I agree that the China fear mongering is likely to get out of hand. China's economic growth doesn't have to come at our peril.

    However, I fear Trump might be right about the dangers of our drive to devalue the dollar. But, that would be more our fault than theirs.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Well, in the long run if China's currency increase, ours will devalue as it should've been doing that whole time.

    & devaluing does help in a balance sheet discussion as it relates to trade. Makes our exports cheaper & imports more costly.

    Making investment domestically more appealing, though can make products we buy more expensive as well.

    Now whether this is a good idea depends upon a lot more, but Trump can't honestly argue that we import too much and our dollar is too low as these are competing priorities.

  • ||

    "China is, literally, going to destroy this company -- this country. "

    Freudian slip! Trump is worried about himself. And he probably sees the country as one giant company in the same way that Lenin wanted to create one giant factory.

  • Predicador||

    A Chinese man and a Jewish man are both getting wankered at some dirty bar. Suddenly, the Jewish gets up and slaps the Chinese in the face.
    - What for?
    - Pearl Harbor.
    - But those were Japanese!
    - Japanese, Chinese, what the difference, really.
    After some time, the Chinese gets up and slaps the Jewish in the face.
    - What for?
    - The Titanic.
    - But that was an iceberg!
    - Iceberg, Goldberg, what the difference, really.

  • ||

    I'll go to Mark Cuban for financial advice well before going to that hack Trump. Cuban at least earned his fortune and didn't run a dozen companies into the ground.

  • ||

    So we have some comments from a guy who knows how to work the money machine (business), how to create jobs (economy), and recognizes a competitor (China). I wish we had someone in the White House who even understood any one of those three. Now repeat after me; China is a communist country, they are a one party dictatorship, and they are not our friends. Their military openly talks about when they will be ready to take on the U.S. (that's us). For those of us who served this is not a academic exercise. This is about ships being hit by new weapons systems that the Chinese are putting in. It is about hearing about the deaths of our friends and being worried that the president will not take their deaths to heart. For a history major it is seeing the handwriting on the wall for the next decade and having a leadership that is afraid to face the truth. I go along with Trump on having reciprical free trade. You play fair with me and I'll play fair with you.
    Though I do wish he would lose the comb over.
    Now you can all poo poo me because you live in a fantasy world where every sits around singing Kumbaya in a circle.

  • ||

    Now go change your drawers.

  • Reality Check||

    J sub D, China already is developing the means to defeat our Navy at sea within five years:

    http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf

    For the Asians, economics=war by other means, and eventually they'll use their advantages to beat us and end American primacy in the world.

    Do you want your grandchildren growing up in a world dominated by Beijing?

  • ||

    Dude quit it. You're scaring me. Really, cut it out.

  • Reality Check||

    Good.

    While Americans get fat and lazy, China gets stronger and stronger. We need to be a little scared.

    Sometimes I think the Cold War is over--and China won.

    Read the artile. It's fucking chilling especially if you understand military strategy and the importance of naval power (as no one on this thread seems to).

    Economics=war. Read the Asian philosopher.

  • ||

    If you keep making a racket about it, then they are going to come for you first. These chicoms are scary sneaky, so just keep your head down and be quiet.

  • ||

    Economics=war. Read the Asian philosopher.

    Really? What's the economic death toll? HURR DURR.

    Economics is not war, economics is what is going to keep China from declaring war. China has finally realized that soft power is greater than hard power. That's something to celebrate, not be afraid of.

  • l0b0t||

    While Kraska makes some sense, most of his speculative fiction can be discounted as alarmist propaganda written specifically for his employer's target demographic (left-leaning, peacenik academics). For a more realistic and grounded assessment, check out the most excellent The PLA at Home and Abroad published by the Strategic Studies Institute at the Army War College. The Chinese have been working to get the aircraft carrier they purchased from Ukraine (the Varyag, a Kuznetsov class ship built in the mid-1980s) operational as a dry-docked training vessel and hope to have it ready by 2015.
    From the SSI pub. - "China's military has achieved rapid, potent development by maintaining an anti-access posture along interior lines & exploiting physics based limitations inherent in the performance parameters of US & allied platforms & C4ISR systems. This should be of tremendous concern to Washington. But dramatic breakthroughs here should in no way be conflated with developments further afield: the core elements of this approach cannot easily be transferred to distant waters. In perhaps the most graphic example of this strategic bifurcation, the Chinese military, as it develops increasing capabilities to target aircraft carriers, is likely becoming acutely aware of their vulnerabilities - & hence reluctant to devote more than a modest level of resources to their development. Just as these limiting factors increasingly threaten US platforms operating in or near China's maritime periphery, they likewise haunt China's navy as it ventures further afield - a navy that is still far behind that of the US in overall resources & experience. Thus far, having carefully studied the lessons of Soviet overstretch, seem unlikely to expend overwhelming national resources to fight these realities. despite their growing concerns abroad, they have too many imperatives closer to home that demand ongoing funding & focus."
    Admiral Wu Shengli, the commander of the PLAN even wrote in 2009 that "...naval modernization must be put within the overall context of national modernization as well as the overall context of military modernization".
    Given ongoing requirements for security of Chinese interests in the South & East China Seas, it is highly unlikely that the PLAN will be able to sustain the sort of robust footprint in the Indian Ocean that some Western analysts claim it is moving toward, no matter how much greater in quality it may be.

  • Reality Check||

    You have to admit that the Pentagon has CONSISTENTLY underestimated Chinese military strength and capability again and again, most recently with the J-20 debacle and the DF-21.

    They may be doing the same thing with the skills and training of the PLN as well.

    It's time to re-arm Japan AFAIC, especially since China's economy will inevitably be able to support a bigger military than us (bigger economy).

    Eventually we need an Asian NATO the linchpin of which will be a re-militarized Japan.

  • Reality Check||

    And China WILL try to have a naval conflict with us in the next 20 years to try to scare us out of the West Pacific. Nobody spends more money researching new ways to kill American sailors than China.

  • l0b0t||

    While I agree with you about Japan (I also think they should have never been disarmed in the 1st place), I just can't hop on the Yellow Peril trolley. I think the last US commander to underestimate the Chinese was MacArthur when he failed to heed the warnings from his own S-2 about advancing past the Yalu river. In my experience, the Pentagon tends to overestimate the Asian threat; I spent almost 20 years sitting through NCO threat briefings with intelligence officers breathlessly barbering on about how Korea or China would be the next place US troops would be in combat, then we would return to our barracks, gear up and deploy to fight everywhere but Asia. The DF-21 is almost 40 years old and predates my military service so I don't know if it came as a surprise but the J-20 demonstrator has been pimped by Shenyang since 2008 when they won the design contract. While it may have come as a surprise to the general public, the aviation and China watching communities have been expecting the PLAAF to field this type of aircraft for some time. Luckily stealth technology is being rapidly outpaced by detection technology, particularly AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar.

  • ||

    The carrier-killer of the DF-21 is NEW and it's a huge threat. There's no way to defeat a salvo of them.

  • l0b0t||

    "There's no way to defeat a salvo of them."
    That's the same rationale the French had for the Maginot Line; for every measure there is always a counter measure. Also, the vulnerability of large ships to missile attack was demonstrated successfully by the Argies in 1982 and should come as a surprise to no one. This is one of the many reasons we keep bases at Okinawa & Guam. IMO, the huge new threat would be from the K series variant of the DF-21, the anti-satellite version. This is all tangential however, my point was that China has domestic priorities and spending constraints similar to every other large nation-state and their willingness to spend their treasure on a naval pissing contest with the US is not as likely as some would have you believe.

  • ||

    Reality Retard, why exactly would China want to take over the West Pacific with force? The Cold War is over, soft power is now what China seeks. China will profit less if it uses force to affect global economics.

  • Mr. Mark||

    I am astounded by how many college graduates believe in "trade deficits." There is no such animal.

  • Bradley||

    Bastiat had this figured out 150 years ago. Too bad modern financial-section columnists will never dig up those dusty old tomes.

  • ||

    The guy has been a failure every where he has been

    He has been uncannily successful at separating rubes from their money.

  • ||

    Their military openly talks about when they will be ready to take on the U.S. (that's us). For those of us who served this is not a academic exercise. This is about ships being hit by new weapons systems that the Chinese are putting in. It is about hearing about the deaths of our friends and being worried that the president will not take their deaths to heart.

    Sweet- more Yellow Peril Terror Porn.

    How do you say, "OogaBoogaaaaah!" in Mandarin?

  • Reality Check||

    http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401.....ar2015.pdf

  • ||

    If you freely exchange money for goods and services, the seller is not "stealing" your money.

  • ||

    Olbermann gets the hook!

    Woohoo!

  • ||

    You're happy about this?

    Do you realize what this is going to do to the American internet commenting industry? This was one place where we were beating the chicoms!

    Now we are going to have unemployed commenters roaming the streets, where once they sat in commenting factories pumping out witty portmanteaus like 'Olberdouche".

  • ||

    Maybe Olbermann will change his name to Chin Wag and webcast Chicommie propaganda from a palatial Shanghai penthouse.

    Damn you, wily Chinaman! Damn you to Hell!

  • ||

    Oh you poo poo this, but it's a real threat, "P Brooks"!

    Why don't you go sing kumbaya, freakin hippie.

    As a karate expert I can say that your kids will be speaking Mandarin!

  • We Chinese||

    We play joke
    We go pee pee
    in your Coke

  • ||

    China’s Innovative Way of Skinning the United States!

    Mark Twain is credited with an early use of the cliché "more than one way to skin a cat" in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, as follows: “she was wise, subtle, and knew more than one way to skin a cat, that is, more than one way to get what she wanted”. Thefreedictionary.com defines beggar-thy-neighbor as: an international trade policy of competitive devaluations and increased protective barriers that one country institutes to gain at the expense of its trading partners. Under the guise of fostering ‘indigenous innovation’, the Chinese government has creatively used a non-conventional, subtle version of beggar-thy-neighbor. Its version doesn’t entail the competitive devaluation of its own currency, which would enhance China’s exports and inhibits its trading partners’ exports. China’s version perpetrates an over-valuation of the currencies of one or more of its trading partners. This negatively affects all the trade of the pegged trading partner(s), not just trade with China. During the recent period China pegged its currency to the U.S. Dollar, its version of beggar-thy-neighbor was 8 times as damaging to the U.S. economy as what the media refers to as “China keeping it currency undervalued”.
    In November 2003, Warren Buffett in his Fortune, Squanderville versus Thriftville article recommended that America adopt a balanced trade model. The fact that advice advocating balance and sustainability, from a sage the caliber of Warren Buffett, could be virtually ignored for over seven years is unfathomable. Until action is taken on Buffett’s or a similar balanced trade model, America will continue to squander time, treasure and talent in pursuit of an illusionary recovery.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement