U.S.-China Trade Becomes A Delicate Issue of Turf
Companies that make things strictly in U.S. factories are increasingly peeved with the way their multinational brethren are rushing to move work to China.
While the tension is most acute in trade associations and other industry groups, it is gaining political momentum that threatens to spill over into coming elections and political debates.
It is a delicate issue because the domestic firms are essentially griping about the actions of multinationals, often their biggest customers. They contend the big firms, having perfected tools of globalization such as the Internet, are in the midst of an unprecedented wave of shifting capital and technology to plants in China and other low-cost locales. This is pulling away vast chunks of business that formerly filtered down through the intricate networks of suppliers and producers inside the U.S. Indeed, the domestic firms raise the specter of the "hallowing out" of the U.S. economy. It only makes matters worse that the U.S. is continuing to shed jobs -- with the June unemployment rate jumping to 6.4%.
To be sure, there are some things all manufacturers can rally around, such as the broad push to get China to stop pegging the value of the yuan to the dollar at what many believe is an artificially low level. Some economists believe the Chinese currency is undervalued by as much as 40%, which gives Chinese goods a built-in advantage against identical U.S. products. Even with the unanimity, the Bush administration doesn't appear eager to get involved.
Beyond that, there is little harmony. Frank Vargo , a trade expert at the National Association of Manufacturers, says domestic-producing companies, including many members of NAM, "want to pull the protectionist trigger" against China.
But that would be a mistake, he insists, because it would harm the U.S. economy by hobbling trade and raising prices for consumers. He adds that multinational companies aren't saying that the U.S. should do nothing. They just don't want China bashing or a policy of picking winners and losers among industries.
"They point out that in addition to being a competitor, China is a growth market," Mr. Vargo says. "So we need a positive agenda moving forward."
China has long been a touchy issue inside NAM. The group has sought to blunt protectionist sentiment among some of its members by pointing to statistics such as the relatively small amount being invested in China by U.S. corporations. Over the past five years, U.S. multinationals invested on average $4.6 billion a year in China -- or only 3.2% of the $141 billion a year invested in all foreign countries.
And yet, that doesn't tell the whole story. Many U.S. companies are buying components and finished goods from existing plants in China. Indeed, more than 90% of U.S. imports from China aren't made in U.S.-owned plants. That helps explain how last year merchandise imports from China zoomed to $125 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $103 billion -- the largest with any country.
For their part, the domestic manufacturers have spawned advocacy groups with names like Save American Manufacturing -- SAM for short -- which uses an image of Uncle Sam as its symbol. "What we've come to recognize is that the goals and procedures of major corporations are very different from those of small and medium-size firms, because [major corporations] have this much greater ability to move across borders," says Daniel Jepson, president of Manufacturers for Fair Trade, another advocacy group that began as an alliance of tool and die companies.
The debate is wrapped in patriotism. One of the "guiding principles" of Mr. Jepson's group, for instance, is that U.S. trade policy "must carefully balance the expansion of international trade with the maintenance of U.S. liberty, sovereignty, and economic stability." Not much to argue about there. But these advocacy groups also contend the national debate is too heavily dictated by lobbyists representing the multinationals and that it is time to flex their own political muscle. Along similar lines, manufacturers in Connecticut are planning a rally in that state Friday under the banner: "Mad in the USA."
"Our customer base just keeps shrinking," says John Pauley Jr., president of Commercial Corrugated Corp., a Baltimore cardboard-box maker. Indeed, until recently his largest customer was a factory in nearby Belcamp, Md., owned by Fellowes Inc., which makes wire desk accessories sold in office supply stores nationwide. "They've decided it's cheaper to produce in China, so they're moving over there," says Mr. Pauley. Losing that one customer will eventually cost him 30% of his $10 million in annual sales.
Mr. Pauley doesn't just blame multinational producers like Fellowes. "You have to realize that they're being forced to do this by the OfficeMax's and the Office Depots," he says, which are constantly pressing all producers for lower prices.
Jim Schollaert, a lobbyist with the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition in Washington, says simply, "The big companies are following a new business model: Pay Chinese wages, but charge U.S. prices."
中美贸易问题演绎影响力之争
美国的跨国公司纷纷将工厂迁往中国，这令那些制造业务基本都在国内的美国同行越来越愤懑。
虽然目前这种紧张状况主要是在贸易协会和其他行业团体中最为严重，但其政治色彩日渐浓厚，并可能蔓延到即将到来的大选和政治辩论中。
这是一个微妙的问题，因为国内公司紧揪的主要是跨国公司的这些行为，而这些公司往往又是它们最大的客户。它们声称，拥有互联网等完善的全球化工具的大公司正处于资金及技术向中国及其他低成本地区转移的浪潮中。这导致大量业务流失，而这些业务原先都会通过美国国内错综复杂的供应商和生产商网络渗透分布。这些美国本地公司惊呼，美国经济可能会被"掏空"。由于美国企业不断裁员－－6月份失业率上升到了6.4%－－这让局面更加恶化。
可以肯定的是，在某些问题上所有制造商是可以团结起来的，比如，它们普遍要求中国停止将人民币兑美元汇率锁定在一个水平上的做法，许多人认为人民币兑美元是一个人为的低水平汇率。一些经济学家认为，人民币汇率低估了40%，这使得中国产品在与同类美国产品竞争时具备了内在的优势。然而，尽管制造商们在这一问题上意见统一，布什政府似乎并不急于卷入此事。
除此之外，制造商们鲜有共识。美国全国制造商协会(National Association of Manufacturers)的贸易专家弗兰克?瓦尔格(Frank Vargo)表示，美国国内制造企业
（包括许多全国制造商协会成员）希望针对中国启动贸易保护机制。
但瓦尔格坚持认为这将是一个错误，阻碍贸易和消费价格提高将会损害美国经济。他补充表示，跨国公司并非认为美国应该坐视不管，它们只是不希望引起中国的报复。
瓦尔格称，这些跨国公司指出，中国不仅是一个竞争对手，而且还是一个正在成长的市场，因此美国需要一个向前看的积极议程。
在全国制造商协会内部中国长期以来一直是一个棘手的问题。该协会曾试图利用一些统计数字来缓和一些成员的保护主义情绪，比如，他们指出美国公司在中国的投资相对较少。过去5年中，美国跨国公司在中国的年平均投资额为46亿美元，仅相当于其每年1,410亿美元海外投资总额的3.2%。
然而，这还不是事情的全貌。许多美国公司还从中国的工厂购买部件和制成品。事实上，在美国从中国进口的产品中有90%以上并非出自美国投资所有的工厂。这就能解释去年美国从中国进口的商品是如何增至1,250亿美元的，结果是给美国造成了1,030亿美元的贸易逆差，这是美国对任一国家的最高贸易逆差。
国内制造商已经组织了诸如名为"拯救美国制造业"等的各种游说团体，"拯救美国制造业"以山姆大叔的形象为标志。最初为模具行业游说团体的"公平贸易制造商"的主席丹尼尔?杰普森(Daniel Jepson)称，现在他们意识到，大公司和中、小公司在目标和运作方式上存在巨大的差距，因为大公司突破国界的能力要大得多。。
这场辩论给蒙上了爱国主义色彩。一个例证便是，杰普森领导的团体有一个"指导性原则"，即美国的贸易政策必须谨慎平衡扩大国际贸易和维持美国的自由、主权及经济稳定之间的关系。关于这一点没什么可以争论的。但这些游说团体声称，这场全国性的辩论已过分地为代表跨国公司的院外活动人士所左右，而现在是他们发挥其政治力量的时候了。在这同一阵线上，康涅狄格州的制造商计划周五在该州举行集会，他们的旗号是："美国的疯子"。
巴尔的摩纸板盒生产商Commercial Corrugated Corp.的总裁约翰?鲍利(John Pauley Jr.)称，该公司的客户群一直在缩小，因为这些客户认为在中国进行生产成本更低，所以都决定迁往中国。就在不久前该公司最大的一个客户还是一家由Fellowes Inc.所属的生产接线台的工厂，失去这个客户最终将使他1,000万美元的年销售额减少30%。
鲍利并没有单纯地指责像Fellowes这样的跨国生产商，他说，必须意识到这些公司也是被OfficeMax's和Office Depots逼迫才这么做的，这些连锁店不断要求生产商降价。
代表美国制造业贸易行动联合会(American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition)的院外活动人士吉姆?绍勒特(Jim Schollaert)说，大公司正在遵循一种新的商业模式，那就是：付中国人薪水，但向美国人要价。
