> at below global cost
The funny thing about cost is that it defines itself.
The funny thing about cost is that it defines itself.
The playing field isn't level.
There are many human rights problems in China, but it is unfair to say they throw _all_ these issues aside. I known many Han Chinese that openly support Tibetan culture and wish to see it preserved.
Environment damage has been a calculated cost and there are many in China that push against it trying to say its time to pull back. A few years ago, I was walking up to a subway station in the Shanghai suburbs. There was a group of local college students with a huge banner urging people to protect the environment. They were asking people to sign the banner. I stopped and said hello and signed. The students were thrilled to have a foreigner sign, but the banner already had hundreds of local Chinese signatures on it. There were no police harassing them and the students seemed at ease in their public protest.
Sure, the playing field is not level. This is by design and China is fairly transparent about the mechanisms they will use to protect or lock in economic growth.
Look at a different trading partner with the U.S.; take a look at Mexico. NAFTA was promoted as a "trade highway" to U.S. voters. Most would take that to imply the highway goes in both directions. But if you have done business in Mexico or travelled there outside the confines of a resort, you'd notice that U.S. goods do not move into Mexico as freely as Mexican goods move out. In English, we always distinguish something that is "one-way" by being sure to say so. But, I never heard a U.S. politician talk about the one-directional nature of NAFTA. I think much of our problem with China is that most simply don't know what the real deal is and some of us are just starting to figure it out.