by Mark P. Dangelo
What strikes me as odd, are the fundamental questions not asked in this short piece. Moreover from those of us that have participated in any “turnaround” situation, there is little mention of the two most fundamental actions within commerce relationships – accountability and responsibility. While America has both duties in the Mr. Roach’s article, I find it curious that portrayed China of the 21st century has very little. With China now the second largest economy in the world, would one not expect a greater role to participate holistically and with “multi-lateral” dialogues?
Finding fault with politicians and economists as players in a fluid global economic and finance markets is easy. However, to in-turn use those economic measures to make leaps of faith to continue trade and finance status quo is perhaps a logic flaw that should be revisited? When leaving out salient facts in the multi-lateral trade theory (e.g., China is the largest portion of the U.S. imbalance, protectionist Chinese barriers of using only domestic suppliers, et al), it is much easier to cast facts to support a position.
It is a shame that this article became one of “me versus they” from an individual who represents both Western and Eastern clients. In a time of global censorship concerns, it appears this article was sponsored not by the head of a global investment institution – but by someone with strong state level representation? We can only hope for a more balanced and objective article in the future.
For the FT article, see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5d309ec-3b5d-11df-b622-00144feabdc0.html