Donald Trump Is Right About China

Donald Trump complained violently about how China uses the United States. He did not specify his objection on TV. Initially, his Chinese bashing sounded like a typical complaint resulting from China having lunch with low-wage manufacturing. China pays their workers something like one-tenth of what American manufacturing employees make. This is the main driver of China's advantage and is a fact of the world economy, and this disparity does not shrink just because Americans are not approved. Then I started to remember a few things. In retrospect, I realized that Donald Trump is right in at least two ways.

First, Chinese manufacturers send large quantities of products to the United States. If these manufactured items are injured or found to be defective, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to bring a Chinese manufacturer into the US court. Under the Hague Convention, foreign manufacturers must file lawsuits in their own language, after which foreign manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of American courts. In theory, Chinese manufacturers are subject to the jurisdiction of American courts, but it is very difficult to receive process services within China. When the process service is enabled, normal detection procedures such as deposits and document requests are usually not recognized. It is very difficult for Americans to make a judgment against Chinese companies. At every point in the legal process, language and cultural barriers are hindering the actions of American lawyers. The only way I saw a Chinese company being brought to an American court was owned by the US federal jurisdiction gained by the company serving the state, China's own alternation, and Chinese consul. It is time. As a matter of fact, few American lawyers try to sue Chinese manufacturers. Due to the high cost of US product liability litigation, Chinese manufacturers have a significant trading advantage over the United States, Europe, and Japan.

Secondly, goods made in Chinese prisons easily invade the United States. This is not expected and violates the law, but it is very difficult to monitor Chinese parts manufacturers. Again, linguistic, cultural and geographical barriers make it very difficult to find products made in Chinese prisons. Federal and state laws stop

An American prison product that crosses state borders. It's easy to see if something is made in the American prison industry. The Hawes-Cooper and Ashurst-Sumners Acts denied the status that US prison-made products are manufactured by interstate commerce, and prohibited prison-made products from crossing US state borders. Most prison industries in the US make goods only for the federal and state governments. Getting exceptions to these voluntary trade restrictions is difficult and imposes other debilitating restrictions.

US law provides remedies for consumers and injured persons who are injured or damaged by defective or dangerous products. American law also opposes the prison industry, which competes with industries that employ workers who comply with the law. Various aspects of these extensive American policies are debatable and subject to change, but both are rooted in American law. China is pursuing policies that are directly against American law. Chinese do not encourage US product liability lawsuits and actively use prison labor.

The stadium is not horizontal between the US and China. The two explained benefits clearly support China. What is unclear is how to improve the imbalance. The US can stop product liability litigation and encourage the prison industry. Or China can accept the long-standing of American litigation and restrict their prison industry. In most cases, both need to change the legal and trade structure.

These are two imbalances in Chinese American trade and diplomatic relations. For those interested in American places around the world, it was best to look for others-and took action.