EU, US accuse China of "steel dumping"

[Androsphinx]

And no, China should not industrialize. There are simply too fucking many of them... Oh, it has every right, Stas. Every right that the rest of the world gets, anyway. You can't try to say we somehow owe anything to the rest of the world just because we're better off.

Is this parody? Do you really think it's fair/just/moral/good (delete as preferable) to live in a society where everyone lives more extravagantly and wastefully than the aristocrats of a century ago, and through a combination of greed, selfishness and carelessness deny even a small portion of that to people whose didn't have your great good fortune?

Yes, given that providing that to them would cause an ecological disaster of unparalleled magnitude.

I'd happily support their industrialization otherwise.

You don't think, seeing how we're deciding what -should- be done on a global scale, that some form of subsidy or cap-and-trade system which would more equitably distribute both wealth and pollution might be a better idea?

[Darth Wong]

Ryan Thunder is a goddamned moron. He seems to think that the First World has an inherent right to be "better off", which is a markedly different argument than the one I'm making. Being "better off" just another way of saying "using up more resources per capita", which someone must justify with some means other than circular reasoning. His argument boils down to "We have the right to use up more resources per capita because we already use up more resources per capita", which is mind-bogglingly stupid.

[Androsphinx]

I wasn't sure if he was stupid or evil. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Darth Wong]

Hmm, there is quite a bit of truth to population control accusation, but isn't it also true that population control, as in centralized, government-directed measures, has only recently come into play (latter part of XX century), and prior to that it was just natural, cultural factors?

True. Population control is often dictated by cultural and environmental factors. But so is everything else under discussion, including industrialization. It's more constructive to look at how we should manage things going forward, as opposed to obsessing about the past. That's the same mistake Ryan Thunder is making: assuming that the past somehow grants magical license to the present.

And isn't it also true that as soon as China started earnestly industrializing, it installed harsh population control measures (One Child Policy) which other Third World nations never gave a shit about - neither India, nor Africa nor Latin America?

In most nations, population downshifts came naturally or sometimes as a result of cataclysmic events (Nazi ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe precluded a large post-war population boom, and extremely harsh climate in general prevented some zones in the North - considering Northern Europe and Asia and Canada - from getting a large population density and runaway growth).

Isn't it unfair a bit that their natural damnation gets to be the same thing that basically kills any opportunities for them?

Define "unfair". If one is going to use the past as justification for the present, one could just as easily say that it was fucking unfair for our forefathers to live in the incredibly harsh environment which you cite as the reason for our historically low population growth, while others took warmer, more fertile land (often by force).

[Ryan Thunder]

Ryan Thunder is a goddamned moron. He seems to think that the First World has an inherent right to be "better off", which is a markedly different argument than the one I'm making. Being "better off" just another way of saying "using up more resources per capita", which someone must justify with some means other than circular reasoning. His argument boils down to "We have the right to use up more resources per capita because we already use up more resources per capita", which is mind-bogglingly stupid.

On the contrary; I see no reason why we should accept a lower standard of living simply so that a country like China can increase theirs.

I see no reason why we should happily go along with their industrialization if it means the ultimate death of our steel industry, either.

I especially see no reason why we should go along with it if they aren't going to drastically decrease their population some how. They're trying to use the same car-centric urban planning model, and we all know how much pollution that nets us.

[Darth Wong]

Ryan Thunder is a goddamned moron. He seems to think that the First World has an inherent right to be "better off", which is a markedly different argument than the one I'm making. Being "better off" just another way of saying "using up more resources per capita", which someone must justify with some means other than circular reasoning. His argument boils down to "We have the right to use up more resources per capita because we already use up more resources per capita", which is mind-bogglingly stupid.

On the contrary; I see no reason why we should accept a lower standard of living simply so that a country like China can increase theirs.

Why do you deserve your current standard of living? What have you done to earn a lifestyle that is vastly superior to those experienced by most of the world? Why should others suffer so that you can have your flat-screen TV and your computer games?

Their argument is simple: the First World standard of living is decadent, greedy, and immoral. We should voluntarily accept a decrease in our standard of living because we are using up an unreasonable amount of resources. I disagree with certain methods of assessing the size of this disparity, but the notion that you can dismiss this with a wave of your hand by saying "I see no reason" is pure pig-headed idiocy.

I see no reason why we should happily go along with their industrialization if it means the ultimate death of our steel industry, either.

Reasons have been given. Your job is to refute them, not declare that you are not personally convinced. That's not a rebuttal, you goddamned moron.

I especially see no reason why we should go along with it if they aren't going to drastically decrease their population some how. They're trying to use the same car-centric urban planning model, and we all know how much pollution that nets us.

They're trying to drastically reduce their population. What are we doing to reduce our resource consumption? We're still talking about getting back on the endless "economic growth" cycle, fucktard.

[ray245]

Yes, given that providing that to them would cause an ecological disaster of unparalleled magnitude.

I'd happily support their industrialization otherwise.

Didn't the first world already created a ecological disaster of unparalleled magnitude as well?

Global Warming?

[Ma Deuce]

High-cost European steelmaker cuts production to keep profitable, low-cost Chinese steelmaker must follow suit? Supply and demand, anyone?

Depends where the demand is coming from: if it is truly from Chinese domestic demand as you say, then I guess that's not really a problem for us.

That is not to say that nothing is happening, all is fine and we should all just move along. Chinese steel producers, tempted by the collapse of the world competition, are overproducing. But that is a problem that is derived from fluctuations of supply and demand and is thus endemic to all capitalist economies. China should not be slammed for doing something malicious, when it is merely following free market trends.

I would say the "free market" is a big part of the problem here, since truly free markets actually encourage malicious business practices. Though since we apparently agree that we can't simply do nothing at all, what would you suggest?

A trade war with China is a good thing? Please enlighten me as to how.

I never said it would be "good", but it would be less bad than blindly continuing down the road to total economic ruin that any significant structural trade deficit inevitably leads to (this would be bad for China as well if their trading partners are unable to buy their stuff anymore). A trade war would certainly not be my ideal solution since it would undeniably be extremely messy in the short term, but I suspect that any attempt by China's trading partners to lessen or eliminate that deficit could easily touch off a trade war anyway, since China's current development model depends on massive trade surpluses so they're not going to simply do nothing if their trade partners take steps to reduce imports from them.

Where am I going with this? People who complain how their country's industry cannot compete with China fail to realize just how MASSIVE China is. No shit any single country can't compete with a country whose workforce is bigger than that of the US, EU, Japan and Russia combined.

Which is why China's trade partners will have to take measures to prodect their own domestic industries through such measures as tariffs, import duties and subsidies. That is the only logical step if your domestic industries can't compete on a level playing field, unless you wish to see them disappear. It also doesn't help that Chinese producers have certain advantages beyond the simple size of their workforce and low labor costs, including currency manipulation and (ironically) government protectionism.

What are you going to punish China for? Being too big? HOW are you going to punish it?

I'm not so much concerned with "punishing" China than I am with the preservation of our own manufacturing base, and not just the steel industry. The only reason the US and other western countries allowed the "one way free trade" deals with China to happen was that they were good for certain big businesses (i.e. retailers) and investors, which obviously isn't necessarily in the overall national interest as a whole.

Anyway, now that the thread has turned to individual consumption vs. population size, It should be obvious that access to such a massive pool of cheap labour such as China only encourages Westerners to over-consume even more. If westerners (especially Americans) were forced to buy more expensive but domestically produced consumer goods (or at least produced in another 1st world country, or if still from China, then with significant duties added) would that not go a long way to reducing individual consumption?

[Ryan Thunder]

On the contrary; I see no reason why we should accept a lower standard of living simply so that a country like China can increase theirs.

Why do you deserve your current standard of living? What have you done to earn a lifestyle that is vastly superior to those experienced by most of the world?

That's a ridiculous question. Since when did "deserving" ever enter into it? Even if we assume that I don't "deserve" to live the way I do, what the hell makes you think that anybody else does, either?

Why should others suffer so that you can have your flat-screen TV and your computer games?

Fuck me and my flatscreen TV. What about the science that enables us to create them in the first place?

Their argument is simple: the First World standard of living is decadent, greedy, and immoral. We should voluntarily accept a decrease in our standard of living because we are using up an unreasonable amount of resources. I disagree with certain methods of assessing the size of this disparity, but the notion that you can dismiss this with a wave of your hand by saying "I see no reason" is pure pig-headed idiocy.

No amount of resource consumption per capita is unreasonable, provided that it is sustainable for their population. For countries with a large population like China, First-World consumption per capita is entirely unsustainable, full stop. They're just going to have to deal with that, the same way that we're going to have to eventually deal with ours. If they want to match our standard of living in anybody's lifetime, they're either going to have to do something drastic and quite probably inhumane or they will destroy the environment.

I see no reason why we should happily go along with their industrialization if it means the ultimate death of our steel industry, either.

Reasons have been given. Your job is to refute them, not declare that you are not personally convinced. That's not a rebuttal, you goddamned moron.

It doesn't benefit us in the slightest. They screw our industry over for their own benefit, and I'm supposed to agree that this is a good thing and go along with it willingly?

I especially see no reason why we should go along with it if they aren't going to drastically decrease their population some how. They're trying to use the same car-centric urban planning model, and we all know how much pollution that nets us.

They're trying to drastically reduce their population. What are we doing to reduce our resource consumption? We're still talking about getting back on the endless "economic growth" cycle, fucktard.

So what? It's not like I ever presented us as some sort of shining beacon of sustainable resource management.

Yes, given that providing that to them would cause an ecological disaster of unparalleled magnitude.

I'd happily support their industrialization otherwise.

Didn't the first world already created a ecological disaster of unparalleled magnitude as well?

Global Warming?

Do you want to make it worse? An industrialized China is going to make Western environmental abuses look like child's play by comparison.

[Darth Wong]

On the contrary; I see no reason why we should accept a lower standard of living simply so that a country like China can increase theirs.

Why do you deserve your current standard of living? What have you done to earn a lifestyle that is vastly superior to those experienced by most of the world?

That's a ridiculous question. Since when did "deserving" ever enter into it? Even if we assume that I don't "deserve" to live the way I do, what the hell makes you think that anybody else does, either?

If you admit you don't deserve to live the way you do, then the onus is on you to justify your sense of entitlement to that lifestyle, you stupid asshole.

Why should others suffer so that you can have your flat-screen TV and your computer games?

Fuck me and my flatscreen TV. What about the science that enables us to create them in the first place?

What about it? How is that even relevant?

No amount of resource consumption per capita is unreasonable, provided that it is sustainable for their population.

And US consumption is not. Why do you think they dump their fucking toxic waste and polluting industries on the third world? Their own country would be a cesspool if they took all of their outsourced industries and ran them domestically the way they run them overseas.

For countries with a large population like China, First-World consumption per capita is entirely unsustainable, full stop.

Nice backpedal, asshole. You said earlier that they should not be able to industrialize at all. Now you're saying that they should not be able to equal US overconsumption. Well no shit, but nobody was disputing that.

It doesn't benefit us in the slightest. They screw our industry over for their own benefit, and I'm supposed to agree that this is a good thing and go along with it willingly?

We screw over the rest of the world with our industrial and economic practices, you goddamned idiot. How are they "screwing our industry over" when we're the ones choosing to go over there and outsource? We are screwing ourselves over, perhaps. But they are not doing anything aggressive to us.

Do you want to make it worse? An industrialized China is going to make Western environmental abuses look like child's play by comparison.

Not necessarily. It depends on how they manage it.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

No amount of resource consumption per capita is unreasonable, provided that it is sustainable for their population. For countries with a large population like China, First-World consumption per capita is entirely unsustainable, full stop. They're just going to have to deal with that, the same way that we're going to have to eventually deal with ours. If they want to match our standard of living in anybody's lifetime, they're either going to have to do something drastic and quite probably inhumane or they will destroy the environment.

Not to try to join in against Ryan, but to build something off of what he said here, what makes China unsustainable as opposed to, say, Japan? Japan even has higher population density than China does. Is it the fact that they have a high population? The EU has a somewhat comparable population and population density; why isn't it unsustainable? The First World as a whole has a similar population to China, so why is its economy sustainable at First World-levels? Because it isn't a single unified political entity?

There seems to be a habit among some when examining issues like resource allotment and consumption to treat states as sort of homogeneous blocks, or as single statistics. A similar situation came up in the discussion about Australia, saying that since it has a lower population density than even Canada, it is sustainable forever. Similarly, saying that since China has ten times the population of Japan that it can't sustain a per-capita economy equal to Japan's is far too simplistic.

[Samuel]

Nitpick much? You could discount 90% of Canada's land area and the point would remain: Canadians do not have anywhere near the population density of China. Why should we be forced to live as if we do?

Canada is an outlier, like Australia. For most of the first world density is high.

It doesn't work for those other countries. Too bad for them. What about Canada and the US?

The overwhelming majority of the first world is not covered by your example. How is it "too bad for them" if they are wealthy anyways? For Canada and the US this only works if land prices are a major cost or resource extraction is a major portion of the economy. I believe that is enough to explain why they are wealthier than the rest of the first world, but not why they are first world in the first place.

What the fuck? What exactly do you think my point is?

Your point was countries are justified in having higher standards of living by having lower population densities. However, the reason that Canada and the US have lower population densities is unrelated to how they became wealthy- in fact, these countries only began to have their growth rate drop after they were industrialized in the first place.

[Guardsman Bass]

Anyway, now that the thread has turned to individual consumption vs. population size, It should be obvious that access to such a massive pool of cheap labour such as China only encourages Westerners to over-consume even more. If westerners (especially Americans) were forced to buy more expensive but domestically produced consumer goods (or at least produced in another 1st world country, or if still from China, then with significant duties added) would that not go a long way to reducing individual consumption?

It depends on what type of consumption. A lot of the cheap imported goods (particularly textiles) go a long way towards raising the living standards of people in the First World, particularly the poor (who would be SOL in your situation, unless you wanted to greatly increase subsidies from the government).

I never said it would be "good", but it would be less bad than blindly continuing down the road to total economic ruin that any significant structural trade deficit inevitably leads to (this would be bad for China as well if their trading partners are unable to buy their stuff anymore).

It only leads to economic ruin if there's no money flowing into the US in the form of investment, FDI, etc to inject cash back into the US economy (which is what the Chinese did with the purchase of treasury bonds).

As for the industries, well - the US has been trending towards a service economy since the 1930s, when the "Service Sector" of the economy first surpassed the Manufacturing Sector (and this was in a period of high protectionism and a collapsed international trading regime).

[Master of Ossus]

The overwhelming majority of the first world is not covered by your example. How is it "too bad for them" if they are wealthy anyways? For Canada and the US this only works if land prices are a major cost or resource extraction is a major portion of the economy. I believe that is enough to explain why they are wealthier than the rest of the first world, but not why they are first world in the first place.

Even if you consider all of Europe First-World, its population is only 700m or so. The US, Australia, and Canada are half that size, so fully 1/3 of the First World is covered by that example even discounting areas of Europe that are fairly sparsely populated (e.g., Scandinavia) and the fact that populations in many European countries are currently declining, or would be declining but for immigration from third-world nations.

Moreover, I think that people are being too quick to dismiss the past as a source of moral authority for benefits enjoyed by residents of the first-world today. A significant part of my earnings go towards either private savings, investment, or state and government programs designed to improve infrastructure, education, etc. Virtually all of those state programs, and a good part of my private savings, are justified on the basis that it will be good for the country or for my family and descendents at some point in the future. People in the past made the same sacrifices for their descendents, today (like me). They set up an effective government, a basic infrastructure, and paid to implement strong education programs, among other things. It would be rather unfair to them (to past generations) for us to turn around today and level the playing field completely for third-world countries that made fewer such investments.

I would certainly think it unfair if I thought that someone in the future would come in and demanded that my children or grandchildren surrender the advantages of the education that I intend to provide them with on the basis that not everyone was able to receive such an education.

[K. A. Pital]

It would be rather unfair to them (to past generations) for us to turn around today and level the playing field completely for third-world countries that made fewer such investments.

Actually, no one here is saying that. What people are saying is that China is legitimately competing with the First World by the same methods the First World used in the past to industrialize; and the First World's willing embrace of outsourcing is contributing to their abilities as well. No one is saying that one should "turn around", merely saying that you have no inherent right to stop the industrialization of another and his competition with you.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, no one here is saying that. What people are saying is that China is legitimately competing with the First World by the same methods the First World used in the past to industrialize; and the First World's willing embrace of outsourcing is contributing to their abilities as well. No one is saying that one should "turn around", merely saying that you have no inherent right to stop the industrialization of another and his competition with you.

However, the argument does tend to provide a moral justification for the current First World standard of living, which obviously massively exceeeds the lifestyle of a majority of the world's population.

[mr friendly guy]

Any one want to justify why Chinese citizens would overconsume like the US if their economy reaches the same level of industrialisation. Ryan seems to be jumping up and down on that point, but why is that guaranteed or even likely, considering other developed countries consume less than the US / capita.

One of the reasons China's economic growth is highly dependent on foreign trade is that their own citizens don't consume that much. Part of that is less money (which presumably will be less of an issue in the above scenario), lack of social safety net (not that the US has a great social safety net compared to say Europe or Australia, but that hasn't stopped its high consumption), financial practices where banks limit lending to the average citizens (which limits credit), and a high tendency to save rather than spend.

I should also point out the problem of China's high energy consumption and pollution from coal powered plants could be offset if they went nuclear. I believe in previous threads evidence has been presented that nuclear would last the whole world for a very long time and nuclear plants don't pollute as much as coal. Thus we just need Chinese leaders to go nuclear. Oh wait

[K. A. Pital]

However, the argument does tend to provide a moral justification for the current First World standard of living, which obviously massively exceeeds the lifestyle of a majority of the world's population.

Yes to some extent, but if you'd be considering the real factors behind the life level, baseline industrialization would be the first and foremost of them, and this is why life level started so wildly deviate after the XIX century and basically distinguished into the known categories during the XX century - pre-industrial societies had mostly similar life levels. Basically, the first wave of industrial plants is the most important. After that, improvements are marginal. This is why the difference in life level between E. Europe and CIS and the First World is small or rather marginal even now, while the colossal gap exists between the Third World and all Second/First World nations.

And this industrialization in particular may not be driven by some sort of moral decisions; quite the contrary, often it might be driven by amoral exploit, war, destruction of competing nation-states and/or their property, holdings and the like; seizure of their resources; massive conquest, colonialism and unequal exchange with less fortunate societies.

Your argument provides a logical underpinning of the First World standard of life, but it does precious little to show a moral justification. You'd be hard pressed to show that the First World attained it's life level by commiting moral, sound and non-harming acts, or that moral acts were a greater factor than immoral ones like conquest, exploit, forcible resource seizure, destruction and opression.

[aimless]

This deviated from Chinese steel rather quickly :p

The questions around the morality of Chinese industrialization are pretty moot though (unless someone people here have a political future there) since they're going to keep doing what they're doing regardless (though you might make the argument that world pressure on humans rights and pollution are in some degree motivational for their government).

Seems the more pertinent question is the morality of any US policies. Not sure if I have this right, but the breakdown so far is between the US acting primarily out of self interest and doing anything in it's power to keep the current standard of living (what's going to happen), or the US deciding that their current standard of living is too high and attempt to engage in trade practices may be detrimental to them in the short term with the intention of benefiting humanity in general?

And if option 2 is morally correct, what are the issues with having a policy that operates on different principles than China's, where they are operating with a nationalist perspective and this new moral policy is operating for humanity in general? Forgive me if this has been brought up before, just wondering.

[K. A. Pital]

The questions around the morality of Chinese industrialization are pretty moot though (unless someone people here have a political future there)

Dunno... I'm pretty intent on moving to China (going into my 2nd year of putonghua right now) and I also (sort of) fit into their political system...

[Fr33ze]

In terms of industrialization and living standards, let's assume China follows the EU model of efficiency in using rail transport instead of copying North America's love of cars.

Not every nation lives the way Americans do, let alone Chinese. The public transportation in China is used a lot more compared to private cars if you take the number of people who can actually afford a car there into consideration. Besides, traffic jams are already a big headache for car owners especially in recent years, so it's not hard to see why China will never be like the States in oil/energy consumption.

There aren't enough of resources available for China to industrialize to 1st world standards without the rest of the world being heavily squeezed, and the rest of the world isn't going to enjoy it. Which leads to resource wars.

China has been heavily "squeezed" by the western world-- Where do you think all the cheap "made-in-China" stuff are from these years? Why is it such a "crime" for them to raise their living standards a bit for a change?

[Ryan Thunder]

In terms of industrialization and living standards, let's assume China follows the EU model of efficiency in using rail transport instead of copying North America's love of cars.

Not every nation lives the way Americans do, let alone Chinese. The public transportation in China is used a lot more compared to private cars if you take the number of people who can actually afford a car there into consideration. Besides, traffic jams are already a big headache for car owners especially in recent years, so it's not hard to see why China will never be like the States in oil/energy consumption.

Well, I respect that. We should use public transit more ourselves.

There aren't enough of resources available for China to industrialize to 1st world standards without the rest of the world being heavily squeezed, and the rest of the world isn't going to enjoy it. Which leads to resource wars.

China has been heavily "squeezed" by the western world-- Where do you think all the cheap "made-in-China" stuff are from these years? Why is it such a "crime" for them to raise their living standards a bit for a change?

Because it will hurt the rest of us and they will hurt themselves in the long run. There are simply too many of them for it to work.

[Fr33ze]

The western provinces (I am here defining the eastern provinces as Manchuria, the coastal provinces aside from Guangxi and Hainan, plus Anhui, Jiangxi, Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai and the western provinces as everything else - feel free to dispute that if you like, though personally I think I could have included Shanxi and Henan in the "eastern provinces")

First of all, the term "Manchuria" is an outdated term, and it only refers to part of Northeast China since 1949.

Secondly, you can't just interpret geography personally. You can take the advantage of studying it a bit while being there at least. By the way, if you say Shanxi and Henan are categorized into the "eastern provinces", people there will either laugh their heads off or give you the look .

Because it will hurt the rest of us and they will hurt themselves in the long run. There are simply too many of them for it to work.

Yes, many problems have already revealed during the industrialization in China, but along with whatever "revolution" or "change", there will be pain. Isn't it unfair trying to keep the whole country's people stay poor in order to make them continue providing resources to others?

[Ryan Thunder]

Because it will hurt the rest of us and they will hurt themselves in the long run. There are simply too many of them for it to work.

Yes, many problems have already revealed during the industrialization in China, but along with whatever "revolution" or "change", there will be pain. Isn't it unfair trying to keep the whole country's people stay poor in order to make them continue providing resources to others?

It's not about the resources they provide to us. It's about the resources they would consume in becoming like us.

If there were fewer of them this wouldn't be so much of an issue.

On a related note, we get a lot of low-quality cheap stuff from them at the expense of our own industry. I don't think that's a good thing.

[Fr33ze]

It's not about the resources they provide to us. It's about the resources they would consume in becoming like us.

If there were fewer of them this wouldn't be so much of an issue.

On a related note, we get a lot of low-quality cheap stuff from them at the expense of our own industry. I don't think that's a good thing.

As I said in the first post, Chinese people simply don't consume like westerners because of their different living habits and cultures, which I personally doubt will change easily within decades.

Unfortunately there is no such "if" in real life, there is already a large number of people existing, and how can you cut the population by any legal or moral means? Hence instead of talking about "what if's", it'd be more practical to do something positive, for example, start using energy efficiently.

Well, with such low prices, what kind of "quality" do you expect?