Stephan Roach has another piece out defending Beijing’s protectionist currency policy. He says that we shouldn’t “blame” the Chinese for our problems, and should rather be:
“…encouraging households to save income…”
But that just begs the question: If Stephan Roach wants Joe Sixpack to save more, why did economists like him design a trading system that sent Joe’s job to China in the first place?
Note to Stephan Roach: It’s hard to save money when you don’t have any income!
Instead of trying to level the playing field, Roach thinks that the US:
“…needs to refocus the US-China trade agenda toward expanded market access…”
And that begs another question: Why wasn’t access to Chinese markets designed into the trading system by economists like Stephan Roach?
Could it be because the multinationals and their lobbyists who wrote the legislation were only interested in getting their sweatshops set up as quickly as possible?
In a free market, the renminbi would strengthen. Chinese imports would become more expensive, multinational sweatshop profits would fall, production would shift back to the USA, and Joe Sixpack would finally be able to feed his children again.
Is that the correct policy to follow? Well we only need to ask two questions to discover the answer:
Do we have an unemployment problem?
Yes; indeed we do.
Do we have a corporate profits problem?
Not hardly. Not at all, in fact.
So, obviously the pendulum of trade policy should swing back in the direction which benefits the whole of the USA, rather than Beijing and the multinationals.
There is a lot more that I could say here, but it really isn’t necessary. Globalism is dying, and the American version of France’s Marine La Pen is on her way.
I don’t know who she is, but trust me…
She is coming.
See also: “What is Stephan Roach Smoking?”