October 20, 2011
The Washington Post has to find economics reporters and/or editors who know some economics. Then it would not print without comment a statement like:
“‘The problem for the U.S. is they owe China so much debt,’ he [Shi Yinhong, director of the Center on American Studies at Beijing’s Renmin University] said, referring to the Chinese government’s vast holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds, estimated at about $1.5 trillion.”
This statement appears in the context of a discussion of whether the dollar is over-valued against the Chinese yuan. The way that China keeps up the value of the dollar is by buying up U.S. debt. The United States government would owe China exactly zero, if the Chinese government did not decide to buy up U.S. government debt with its dollar earnings instead of just selling them in international currency markets.
This is exactly what advocates of a lower dollar are complaining about. It is absurd for someone to say that the problem is not an over-valued dollar, but rather U.S. debt to China. These are the same problem — and reporters and editors at major newspapers should know this.
The article also wrongly tells readers:
“China is well known as the home of counterfeit products — from imitation iPads and iPhones to fake software to pirated CDs and DVDs.”
Actually, the vast majority of these products are not counterfeits, consumers know that they are not getting the brand name product. The products are unauthorized copies of brand products.
This is an important distinction. Consumers benefit from buying unauthorized copies at lower prices than the brand versions. Consumers are defrauded by counterfeit products. Consumers will assist law enforcement officials in exposing counterfeit operations, they will not help in shutting down sellers of unauthorized products.
If U.S. corporations succeed in excluding the sale of unauthorized copies in China’s markets then it will lead to higher prices for Chinese consumers. This will reduce real wages and incomes and slow growth. The Post should have interviewed an economist who could have explained this to readers.
Comments