Blimey! Is Putin reading my blog?

Or perhaps I've got a mole here at D&N - better call for Smiley! 

I witter on thus because it was only yesterday that I published a post warning of the danger that the world would drift into trade protectionism beginning with the USA offering its, er, 'partners' a version of the old British Imperial Preference system.  No sooner had I passed on this 'hot intelligence' than Putin let it be known that he is going to pursue a "Eurasian Union", as reported in Yahoo News:

Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said he wants to bring ex-Soviet states into a "Eurasian Union" in an article which outlined his first foreign policy initiative as he prepares to return to the Kremlin as the country's next president.

Putin said the new union would build on an existing Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan which from next year will remove all barriers to trade, capital and labor movement between the three countries.

"We are not going to stop there and are setting an ambitious goal -- to achieve an even higher integration level in the Eurasian Union," Putin wrote in an article which will be published in Izvestia newspaper on October 4.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, or to be precise, the US Congress, as The Washington Post reports, bills are working their way through the system, with mixed support and opposition, which will seek to raise penalties against Chinese imports which, the Americans claim, are gaining a 20% to 40% price advantage over American products because the Chinese government is deliberately holding down the value of their currency.  And of course, that is exactly what they are doing because they have zillions of citizens to satisfy who have begun to enjoy a taste of the good life but which will vanish overnight if Chinese exports falter.  Of course, whether the Americans are wise to penalise another nation for bending so-called 'rules' in order to supply Americans with cheap products is another matter.  They could be sowing the wind prior to reaping the whirlwind but, hey, just like Westminster, you could die of old age before you found much in the way of intelligence in Congress - let alone the White House!

 ADDITIONAL:  I couldn't immediately find this open letter from Don Boudreaux, 'proprietor' of The Cafe Hayek, to Michele Bachmann (and you will have noticed the lack of my usual endearments when previously mentioning this lady) but it is germane to the subject above and highlights the nonsense that is spewed forth by politicians eager to win cheap votes by recommending protectionism: 

Dear Rep. Bachmann:

Politico reports your support for Uncle Sam taking action against Beijing’s policy of allegedly keeping the value of the Chinese renminbi too low (“Bachmann hits China on ‘lasers’,” Sept. 30).

Now that you’ve aligned yourself with America’s screechy protectionists, who insist that it’s harmful for Americans to have too much access to low-priced imports, I’ve a question for you.  Would you applaud if Beijing erects a partial blockade against America – a blockade in which Chinese naval and air forces forcibly reduce America’s imports to levels that you and, say, Sen. Chuck Schumer determine are ‘appropriate’?

If not, why not?

The result of such action by Beijing would be identical to the result of the action that you insist Beijing take: in both cases Americans’ cost of buying Chinese-made goods would rise and, hence, Americans would import fewer goods from China.  If deploying government force to raise Americans’ cost of importing makes Americans more prosperous, surely you’d as vigorously support Beijing enforcing such a blockade as you now support Uncle Sam enforcing higher tariffs on imports from China.

Same means (government force used to obstruct voluntary purchases); same result (fewer American imports, and – at least in your reckoning – greater American prosperity).

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

Comments

[A K Haart]

My first thought was 1984.

[dearieme]

I remember reading once that Imperial Preference worked out v well for Australia but did very little for Britain.

[JK]

Uhm... David?

I umm... well I'm not sure. I know me and Vlad were on the phone. I know sometimes when I'm waiting for the translators I've usually got the computer running and sometimes I catch myself muttering and on some very few occasions I've muttered something loud enough for the translators to hear.

But if that was the case David, totally inadvertent.

Just don't post anything Saturday David. Vlad and me are getting together for beer and snooker.

[David Duff]

My gloomy thought centres more on 1934, AK.

What else, DM, given that they're all ex-cons 'down there' - er, except Andra, of course - he added quickly!

Ah, glad to hear from you, JK, you've been on the missing list for a while and I was getting worried.

[Andra]

America would be very foolish to abolish the cheap Chinese imports.
If they were to cease thousands of Walmartians would revolt and, let's face it, they are quite revolting already.
The thought of a hundred thousand Walmartians marching on Washington should frighten everybody, Chinese and Americans alike.
I believe the very ground would tremble.
And quite right too!
Be afraid, be very afraid!

[David Duff]

"Walmartians" - love it!

[David Duff]

"Walmartians" - love it!

[JK]

Well David, if you love "it" so much you post it twice...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VkV4pz1osY

[Andra]

David, I didn't realise you stuttered.
Never mind, you're stil cute.

[David Duff]

Waddya say? Waddya say? Waddya say?

[JK]

Were I a "little brother" mixing up model airplane glue with Vaseline (Dear fellow D&N followers - you must subscribe to DD's "funnies columns") you'd immediately latch onto David's "Waddya say."

Suffice to say, look back (Er) to see which "candidate" looks best in a sarong.