The Wall Street Journal editorial board claims to be a protector of the purity of free markets. And they decry government intervention.
Why, then, do they rail against efforts to rein in China’s trade cheating via state capitalism? They really are anti-American and anti-economic recovery. They have no concept of net trade flows… the fact that imports far exceed exports.
Their recent editorial, last Friday, hyperventilates about Obama’s “protectionist” trade enforcement efforts directed at China. They are pro-government involvement and pro-cheating and anti-rule of law… for other countries. A radio show host that interviewed me last month calls such people “free traitors”.
The depths of the WSJ editorial board lying is revealed in this statement:
Of particular interest to Presidential candidates, the election swing states Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan all make the list of top-15 state exporters to China in dollar terms, with export growth of 1,177%, 838% and 1,169% respectively over the past decade.
You read that right. They cited Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio as states that benefit from rampant global trade cheating. Unbelievable. Those states have been decimated by Communist Party subsidized imports to the U.S. that displaced thousands of workers and companies in those states.
In general, anyone that talks about trade in an “export only” framework is either an idiot or a shyster. Remember that Obama wants to double exports in the five years after 2010, but Bush already beat him to it from 2002 to 2007. Exports almost doubled during those years, but imports grew faster… producing the biggest trade deficit in the history of the universe.
And the WSJ doesn’t want to neutralize currency manipulation. How can they favor currency cheating by a foreign government run by communists that tariff our exports and subsidize their shipments to us?
Because Wall Street, Caterpillar, GE and the multinationals, Wal-Mart and Big Retail make money from this.
As Upton Sinclair once said: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”