Santa Claus is Chinese
by Lester Brown, Washington, D.C on 12.25.06
I know Santa Claus is Chinese because each Christmas morning after all the gifts are unwrapped and things settle down I systematically go through the presents to see where they are made. The results are almost always the same: roughly 70 percent are from China. After some research, it seems that my one-family survey is representative of the country as a whole.
Let’s start with toys. At the Earth Policy Institute, we have found that some 80 percent of the toys sold in the United States are made in China. Electronic goods—from Apple’s iPod to Microsoft’s Xbox—are made in China. Clothing—from the latest cashmere sweaters to gym suits—is also likely to have a “Made in China” label.
The Christmas tree itself may come from China. Eight out of every 10 artificial Christmas trees sold in the United States are made in China. Last year Americans spent over $130 million on plastic Christmas trees from China.
That the U.S. Christmas is made in China is a metaphor for a far deeper set of economic issues affecting the United States. Today Christmas is celebrated in both the United States and China—but for different reasons and with far different economic consequences. For the Chinese, the manufacturing bonanza means record profits, rising incomes, and a sharp jump in savings. In the United States, Christmas shopping expenditures, headed for another record high this year, contribute to rising credit card debt and a soaring trade deficit. Underneath the American Christmas spirit and good cheer is a debt-laden society that appears to have lost its way, marred in the quicksand of consumerism.
At the personal level, credit card debt just keeps climbing, and at the government level, we have the largest deficit in history. At the international level, we have a trade deficit that moves to a new high month after month.
It’s not the fact that our Christmas is made in China, but rather the mindset that has led to it that is most disturbing. We want to consume no matter what. We want to spend now and let our children pay. It is this same mindset that introduces tax cuts while waging a costly war. Economic sacrifice is no longer part of our vocabulary. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt banned the sale of private cars in order to mobilize the U.S. automobile industry to build tanks and planes. In contrast, after 9/11, President Bush urged us to go shopping.
The official national debt, the product of years of fiscal deficits, now totals $8.5 trillion—some $64,000 per taxpayer. Each month the Treasury covers the fiscal deficit by auctioning off securities. The two leading international buyers of U.S. Treasury securities are Japan and China. In this role, China is now also becoming our banker. This developing country, where income levels are one sixth those of the United States, is financing the excesses of an affluent industrial society. What’s wrong with this picture?
Beholden to other countries for oil and to finance our debt, the United States is fast losing its leadership role in the world. The question we are facing is not simply whether our Christmas is made in China, but more fundamentally whether we can restore the discipline and values that made us a great nation—a nation the world admired, respected, and emulated. This is not something that Santa Claus can deliver, not even a Chinese Santa Claus. This is something only we can do.
Full text of Santa Claus is Chinese.
While there are many reasons why China's manufactoring sector is problematic (including the lack of environmental controls, real worker rights, and privitization), most of the points raised in this article are not only tenuous at best, but raise the same ridiculous nationalism that makes liberals and paleo-conservatives odd bed buddies.
The idea that America is beholden to China or Japan, presumes that investment in United State Debt has any real bearing on government policy. This is simply untrue. There are way more effective ways to bribe government officials, and buying loads of debt isn't one of them. Japana nd China continue to purchase such debt in order to keep stability of the American dollar, which China's currency is pegged to(meaning they wouldn't want to see a run on the dollar), and whom Japan relies upon for export trading. Even if they were to sell, its doubtful that any sort of serious run would occur, simply that the debt would change hands.
The article is also ridiculous for trading on the faux nationalism that unfortunatly prevades most liberalism today. I could give a damn less about how "America" (a vague concept that has a tendency to exclude significant portions of the people within and without America's territorial boundaries) does, and feel little interest in seeing a revival of New Deal era absurdities, that took the gusto out of real social change and substantial attempts at equality in this country, and subsituted barely adequate social programs. I could care less whether "America" returns to greatness. I do care though about the environmental state of the world, the advancement of labor and worker rights, and breaking down of segregation and prejuidices worldwide. None of those have anything to do with "America" or bringing it back to glory.
Global warming melted away the North Pole, so Santa outsourced his elf labor to China.
i still believe globalization is a good thing.
Each country has its comparative advantages. China has 1.3 billion people, so the cost of labor is cheap. Low tech job and manufacturing jobs will go to China, India, and other countries. As China develops, the cost of living and labor will rise in China. The labor and cost of living have already gone up tremendously since 1990. Soon China will have less low cost labor advantages.
Globalization had increases the integrity and interaction among people. In other words, globalization is even called the growing integration of economies and societies around the world. So, what’s the harm in it?
An example of optimistic feature of globalization is the fast development of China and India, which were underprivileged 20 years ago.
I agree that the mindset that leads to overconsumption, which itself leads to environmental degradation and personal and national debt in the US has to change. It simply can't go on like that, and moving plastic trinket across the globe is not sustainable from an energy-analysis point of view.
High tech, high added value things might be worth shipping, but a lot of things aren't and only artificially cheap energy makes it work.
JasonY:
"Soon China will have less low cost labor advantages."
Don't hold your breath. Most of China still lives in dire poverty and it will be a long time before the U.S. labor cost structure is even close to Chinas (especially if we increase minimum wage).
But what does any of this discussion have to do with environmentalism? If you want to save the environment why not start with an easy one like the destruction of rain forests not complicated and debatable business issues like free trade, tax policy and National Debt.
i'm chinese, but i'm not cheap labor. you gotta pay a lot to make me happy. :)
I agree that soon China will have less low cost labor advantages.
more and more investor move their factories out of China and now the small developing countries such as Vietnam will be their first choice. even chinese investor prefer to carry out manufacuring in these country due to the cheap raw material and labor.