Let me start by saying that I was excited to see unfamiliar faces participating in this week’s discussion. So long as that remains the case, though, detailed note-taking is going to be somewhat impractical. Assuming there are no objections, I’d like to plan to post brief summaries of certain weeks’ topics and the various arguments presented, in place of my usual minutes.
—
The topic this week was a general “Chinese imports.” Vague enough to go in any of several directions, the actual question onto which we turned our attention was, as posed by David, if/why the U.S. Government is responsible for inspecting products imported from China. Inspired by a few high-profile cases of what Bob described as “toxic toys” and “poisoned pet food,” this was more generally an issue of public health and safety. I’m sure everyone was as astonished as I was to find the overwhelming majority of those present opposing government action in this case as unwelcome and unnecessary. Vake presented eloquent (if ultimately unconvincing) counter-arguments, penned by such distinguished public figures as Chris Dodd and Barack Obama. (Perhaps he’ll post a few of his links, for our collective edification.) Mark noted that the problem arises as a result of high demand for cheap goods. On the other hand, I contended that the Government is reponsible for products imported from China if the voting public says so. There didn’t appear to be much doubt in anyone’s mind that private companies could accomplish as much as the government, and probably do so more efficiently. However, I argued that people might prefer the government to shoulder the responsibility of differentiating between safe and unsafe products, and that voting can constitute making a rational choice according to one’s preferences. Christian and Josh noted that no amount of regulation (by either the public or the private sector) would likely make a difference, because the Chinese system allows little recourse to those wronged. They felt we would be better served addressing the root of the problem (ie. working toward open markets and the recognition of property rights in China - I assume).
—
“You want the benefits of free trade? Food is cheaper. Clothes are cheaper. Steel is cheeper, cars are cheeper. Phone service is cheeper. It lowers prices, it raises income. Free trade stops wars.” Toby Ziegler, The West Wing.
“Trade with China is essential for human rights. By engaging China and making them live by the same global trading rules as everyone else, we gain 1.2 billion consumers for our products, and we strengthen the forces of freedom. And the President knows this.” Albie Duncan, The West Wing.
“I don’t trust politicians to choose the right new energy sources. I believe in the free market. You know, the government didn’t switch us from whale oil to the oil found under the ground. The market did that. And the government didn’t make the Prius the hottest selling car in Hollywood. That was the market that did that. In L.A. now, the coolest thing you can drive is a hybrid. Well, if that’s what the free market can do in the most car-crazed culture on Earth, then I trust the free market to solve our energy problems. You know, the market can change the way we think. It can change what we want. Government can’t do that. That’s why the market has always been a better problem-solver than government and it always will be.” Arnold Vinick, The West Wing.
LOL @ Sorkinisms!!!!