Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
Readers Respond
News Opinion Readers Respond

Warren Buffet has a good plan for managing our trade with China

Peter Morici's recent article provides an excellent synopsis of our relationship with China and its practice of mercantilism ("China currency bill: America fights back," Oct. 11). He lists GE and Caterpillar as U.S. companies salivating at the prospect of gaining access to China's massive developing market and willing to agree to Chinese demands for technology transfers through forced joint-venture arrangements with local companies.

Congress' threats of tariffs and attacks on the Chinese yuan are a rerun of the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930, which was a major cause of the Great Depression. Passing such measures today would lead to global economic chaos.

The demand for revising exchange rates is not only politically naïve but economically ill-conceived. Doubling the value of the yuan would in effect double China's average labor cost of $2 an hour, but would do absolutely nothing to make U.S. consumer goods produced with $20 an hour labor more competitive. Meanwhile, it would cut China's raw materials costs in half.

Warren Buffett targeted unequal trade agreements and proposed a unique method to eliminate the growing U.S. foreign exchange deficit. The Buffett proposal in no way inhibits trade — there are no countries singled out for retribution, no quotas, tariffs or limits on investment in U.S. manufacturing companies, and no demands for local content on goods sold in the U.S.

Sen.Russell Feingold converted Mr. Buffett's proposal into a bill called the Balanced Trade Restoration Act, which requires cumulative global reciprocity in exchange for access to our markets. But it failed to pass.

Considering that the Chinese are now our bankers and produce a significant amount of our consumer and industrial goods, the current tariff and exchange rate legislation should be replaced by the Buffett-Feingold approach.

Charles Campbell, Woodstock

The writer is a former senior vice president of the Gulf Oil Corporation.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Needed: A sane energy policy

    Op-ed contributor Peter Morici talks about "Obama's failed oil policy" (April 26), but what has really failed is the lack of energy policies from President Reagan right down to President Obama.

  • Plenty of blame for high gas prices (and profits) to go around

    Peter Morici is obviously a learned man in the field of economics. Unfortunately, he reveals his extreme political bias again and again, most recently in his op-ed ("Obama's failed oil policy," April 26). The anti-Obama voices in our country are loud and strong, anxious to attribute any negative...

  • Who benefits from the oil crisis?

    I agree with op-ed contributor Peter Morici that economic recovery will spur demand for gasoline and jet travel ("Obama's failed oil policy," April 26). However, his idea that the money Americans spend on higher gas and vehicle prices will stay home to create good jobs does not appear to be working...

  • Social Security is flawed, but it's no Ponzi scheme

    Peter Morici's characterization of Social Security as a Ponzi scheme in his recent opinion piece ("Yes, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme," Sept. 22) is an affront to all intelligent people. In the first place, a Ponzi scheme is a deliberate attempt by a "snake oil salesman" to convince gullible...

  • Obama repeats the stimulus mistake

    In your editorial on the Republican reaction to President Obama's jobs plan ("Let them eat tax cuts," Sept. 12), why give a snide remark about House Speaker John Boehner playing golf? Mr Obama has played more in the last two and a half years than I have, and I am retired and my kids are out of...

  • Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, but privatizing it won't help

    The only real solution for the nation's retirement system is to require people to work longer