Comment: Who Has Hurt China By Making Anti-Dumping In Europe And America?

Last month, the French Institute of social research HarrisInteractive conducted a public opinion survey in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. The survey showed that France, 93%, the United States 90%, Germany and the United Kingdom 87%. people's website. Tianjin windows 21 November: China's manufacturing enterprises, many of which are based on the advantages of human resources, are meager profits. They say that they want to beat the competitors of the world at a cost below the cost, which is a bit unthinkable.

Last month, the French Social Research Institute HarrisInteractive conducted a public opinion survey in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States. The survey showed that 93% of France, 90% of the United States, 87% of Germany and the United Kingdom, 88% of Italy and 86% of Spain were recognized as the number one power in the world, while China ranked second.

The result is far beyond the expectation of the Chinese.

How did European and American respondents come to this conclusion?

China's military strength is far behind Russia, and it will not give the impression of second powerful countries in military affairs.

China is also relatively low-key in diplomacy.

The impression of European and American people is more likely to come from the impact of China's economic miracle.

Over the years, Madein China has been driven into Europe and America.

Chinese people who go abroad are almost the same as visiting supermarkets in China.

Europe and the United States were surprised by the miracle of China's economy, but also offered the banner of protectionism.

The "anti-dumping" case against Chinese products is endless, and the safety problem of Chinese products has been overstated.

China does have a problem of undervaluation of the renminbi, but it is also their own interests that Europe and the United States have launched "anti-dumping" trade wars against Chinese products.

Dumping is a way to crush opponents at a cost less than cost. In economics, there is such a noun. In film and television dramas, it often shows the brutality of shopping malls, but rarely happens in reality.

The reason is that it is impossible to estimate how much it costs to crush an opponent, and even if he squeezed his opponent and tried to use the advantage of market share to make up for the loss, he would be faced with consumer resistance (consumption or substitution) and new competitors.

As for sales at below cost, they can be seen frequently in the streets.

The clothing store jumped the building sale, the hotel launched the ultra low price special dish, the guesthouse sends the potential customer to spend one night.

It seems that no one ever thought of going to court to prosecute such dumping.

Because these behaviors are not aimed at crushing opponents, but for advertising effects, or in order to reduce the cost of entering wrong goods and renting wrong stores.

China's manufacturing enterprises, many of which are based on the advantages of human resources, are few and far from being able to beat competitors around the world at a cost less than cost.

I'm afraid many Chinese enterprises simply don't care about some competitors in Europe and the United States. They only produce by order.

Europeans and Americans are welcoming Chinese products when they are consumers, but when they are producers, they reject Chinese products.

Professor Zhou Qiren said that some people in Spain burn Chinese shoes, not because of poor quality, but because the cost performance of their products is so good that their shoe factories have been hit.

Enterprises affected by this demand require anti-dumping laws to punish Chinese products with tariffs.

Bastiat, a French economist in nineteenth Century, has pointed out the effect of this from a simple economic point of view.

On the face of it, the anti-dumping duty has prevented foreign products from entering, or increased the prices of foreign products, so that consumers have to buy their own products, so that their industries can survive. This is a visible effect.

The invisible effect is that consumers pay more for this, resulting in less consumption of other products, thereby damaging the survival and development opportunities of other industries.

Another unseen effect is that the cost of some industries has increased and the survival is more difficult.

For example, the policy of protecting the domestic steel industry will lead to an increase in the cost of domestic iron and steel enterprises.

If the anti-dumping duty is only visible, it is certainly a good thing.

However, when the visible effect is generated, the invisible effect will inevitably come into being simultaneously.

The reason for economics is so simple that no tricks can be changed.

Does the government have the right to influence the survival and development of other industries for the benefit of an industry?

Moreover, China is a big market and a big buyer in the world: the largest commercial aircraft market, equipment and tools market, automobile market, big importer of crude oil, raw materials and foodstuff.

A trade war is bad for either side.

To expand the scope, the shoe factory calls for the use of the "anti-dumping" law, which can also be demanded by garment factories.

Shoemaking workers will find that the price of clothes will increase and they will have to buy less, while the workers in garment factories will have the same findings.

Each industry is asking the government to protect itself, while creating obstacles for other industries.

So none of them could breathe a sigh of relief.

The government's right approach is to let domestic industries find comparative advantages in international competition rather than trying to intervene in the global allocation of resources.

More than 100 years ago, the West opened the door to China's market by war. Today, after nearly 30 years of reform and opening up, China has made European and American trade protectionists close their doors.

Europeans and Americans should not forget the teachings of their economic sages.

For China, it should also open up its own market even further thanks to the open world market.