"axolotl" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


It's mostly a strawman. If you don't mind my not wanting to type it all
out
again, you can read what I said about it in my second China article:


Ed,

The articles are so good that I printed them out to sit and _read_ them.
Clearly, what you state is what is happening. You have arrived at the
question - now that we know what has happened what can be done to fix
it. The legislation outlined doesn't seem to address the central issue,
the enormous sink of Chinese workers.

Thanks for your comments, Kevin. It makes the work worthwhile. It sure as
hell isn't the money they pay me. g

As for what actions to take, better thinkers than I have wrestled with that
question without much in the way of an answer. I have a theory I'd like to
investigate, though, if I had a couple of research assistants (hah!) and
about a year to study it. It's complex to explain, but it's directed NOT at
restricting trade with protectionism, but rather with expanding the idea of
"offsets," which other countries apply to our commercial aircraft and
military hardware manufacturers to balance their trade. I'm sure most
economists would shoot that idea all to hell, and our government is opposed
to offsets, but they're beginning to look pretty good to me.

Ed Huntress