Promise to fall no further behind?

Let's return to the quote presented in my previous post. 

Macleans's Magazine, August 8, 2011, page 13, Columnist Paul Wells:

"When (China's) President Hu Jintao was in Ottawa last June, he announced Canada and China had set a goal of doubling bilateral trade volume to $60 billion in five years, by 2015.  But here's the thing.  China's trade with the rest of the world more than doubles every five years. Its trade with the U.S. has more than doubled in recent five-year periods....Harper's (prediction) amounts to a promise to fall no further behind."

I really cannot find words to describe the sheer nonsense and ignorance of this passage written by Columnist Wells.

Did Wells write this passage himself or was he given the wording by the Prime Minister's office?  Or was he given the wording or general direction by the owners of Maclean's Magazine?

"China's trade with the rest of the world more than doubles every five years".  Is this supposed to be a good thing? 

When China's trade doubles, there is more destruction of the manufacturing sector of every western country including Canada.  More jobs destroyed.  More simplification of the economies of the western countries, making it impossible for young adults to find employment.  Making it impossible for young adults to look forward to a normal life of employment, earning money, saving, marriage, family, buying a house or apartment.  Making it impossible for people of all ages to find employment and have a life of dignity and usefulness in society. 

In the famous book "Festival at Farbridge" by J. B. Priestley, it is England 30 years after the end of World War I.  A man who was in the worst of the fighting in World War I, but somehow survived, is sent to visit a certain house and knocks on the door.  The door opens and the man asks to see the master of the house.  He is ushered in and is amazed and stupefied to see who it is.  He has stumbled upon the now-retired general who commanded his division in the War.  The man remembers the general's statement when he was first put in charge of the division and made his first inspection.  The general said "This division can't be very effective.  It hasn't taken enough casualties."

Is this what Wells means when he refers to a "Promise to fall no further behind."?

Does he mean that we have not yet had enough destruction of our manufacturing sector? 

Does Wells think that "trade" with China is some great thing and countries should rush onto the bandwagon to get some of the benefits for themselves?

I think the basic problem is that columnists and politicians do not understand negative numbers.

Everyone is familiar with a temperature of     - 5 degrees Centigrade.   A cold winter day, but not necessarily a disaster as long as there is no wind.  If later in the day, or overnight, the temperature is   - 10 degrees Centigrade, is this better?  Is it more comfortable?  Obviously not.

Every country that is in a "trade" relationship with China is in negative territory.  Example: Country X's balance of trade in manufactured goods with China is a NEGATIVE number, say - $30 billion dollars per year.   Note the minus sign.  It is highly significant.  Five years later, Country X's balance of trade in manufactured goods with China is - $60 billion dollars per year.  Is this better?

Same answer as for the outdoor weather example!  A resounding NO!

A negative balance of trade of $60 billion per year is much WORSE than a negative balance of $30 billion per year.

It means double the hemorrhage of Country X's real physical money out of the country, never to be seen again.  It means double the loss of manufacturing employment at home in Country X.  It means double the unemployment insurance benefits, double the welfare payments, double the social costs, double the despair of the people of Country X.

It is obvious that Columnist Wells, and quite possibly Prime Minister Harper and his officials, understand nothing of this.

Chinese officials must be laughing their heads off at how easily Canadian officials are fooled and blinded concerning the reality of “trade” with China, and the real intentions of China.

To see whether we have already taken enough casualties, or to see if we are "falling behind" in taking casualties, let’s look at some Canadian data and compare with data from our good near neighbour, the USA! (Data are from official sources and are for 2010.)

Canada.  Negative balance of trade in manufactured goods with all foreign countries including United States.

$80.79 billion.    Population of Canada 34,350,000

Negative balance of trade per person $2352

United States. Negative balance of trade in manufactured goods with all foreign countries including Canada.

$634.6 billion.    Population of United States 312,280,000

Negative balance of trade per person $2032

We can see that Canada is importing manufactured goods at a proportionally higher rate than the United States. We have not "fallen behind".  We are taking more than our share of casualties!

The situation is even worse than appears from these numbers, because the U.S. trade balance includes imported oil, while oil is not included in the Canadian trade balance.  If oil were removed from the U.S. trade balance, the negative balance of trade per person would be less than $2032.

Now let’s look at trade with China only.

Canada.  Negative balance of trade in manufactured goods with China.

$36.13 billion.

Negative balance of trade per person  $1052

United States. Negative balance of trade in manufactured goods with China.

$273.1 billion.

Negative balance of trade per person $875

This comparison shows even more strongly that Canada has not fallen behind in taking casualties.  We are worse off than the United States, in this case specifically with respect to China.  The last thing we need is more casualties, more “trade” with China. 

Now consider Canadian trade in manufactured goods with the United States.  Here is a surprise, to me at least.  The Canadian balance of trade with the United States was an amazing POSITIVE $21.9 billion in 2010, up from the 2009 figure, but well down from 2006 when the trade balance was $63.5 billion. 

I hope no one in Ottawa or at Maclean’s Magazine thinks that we should go into more “trade” with China because our trade with the United States is down.

Only people who don't understand negative numbers look for more "trade" with China.

I use quotation marks because trade is not the correct word.  Any relationship between Country X and China means devastation and destruction for Country X.  The relationship is pathological, exploitive.  The innocent word "trade" does not include these phenomena.

If we can’t keep up our positive balance of trade in manufactured goods with the United States, because our dollar is high or for any other reason, we should at least work very hard to ensure that our negative balance of trade in manufactured goods with all foreign countries does not become larger, i.e., does not become a larger negative number.

We must reduce imports and increase domestic manufacturing.  Our negative balance of trade in manufactured goods with all foreign countries ALMOST TRIPLED in the last five years:

Year 2006   $27.89 billion

Year 2007   $32.59 billion

Year 2008   $58.99 billion

Year 2009   $75.54 billion

Year 2010   $80.79 billion

We are going in absolutely the wrong direction.  It is wrong to say "this is the way of the world today and we have to accept it".  We can't accept a growing hemorrhage of real wealth out of our country.  We can't accept a hemorrhage of jobs, with the result that our people of all ages can't find employment. 

Fortunately our negative balance of trade in manufactured goods with China only increased by 27% over the last five years.  Maybe this is what Columnist Wells and Prime Minister Harper refer to as "falling behind".   I refer to it as the first bit of good news I've heard today!