By John Rutledge (China Daily)
Updated: 2007-08-03 13:54

By the end of this year, China will most likely be the United States' second largest trading partner. Over the past six years, total trade between the two countries has soared, growing from $116 billion in 2000 to almost $343 billion in 2006. That's an average growth rate of almost 20 percent a year.

This marvelous growth has led to more affordable goods, higher productivity, strong job growth, and a higher standard of living for both countries. These economic benefits were made possible in large part because both China and the United States embraced freer trade.

Related readings:  US's allegations of subsidies are groundless  Paulson: China committed to yuan reform  Economist forsees US launching trade sanctions against China  1st-half surplus to top $100b Official: Chinese exports are safe  U.S. an irresponsible stakeholder  Mundell: US calls for RMB rise a move to slow China's expansion

As economists, we understand the vital and beneficial role that free trade plays in the world economy. Conversely, we believe that barriers to free trade destroy wealth and benefit no one in the long run. Because of these fundamental economic principles, we sign this letter to advise Congress against imposing retaliatory trade measures against China.

There is no foundation in economics that supports punitive tariffs. China currently supplies American consumers with inexpensive goods and low-interest rate loans.

Retaliatory tariffs on China are tantamount to taxing ourselves as a punishment. Worse, such a move will likely encourage China to impose its own tariffs, increasing the possibility of a futile and harmful trade war. American consumers and businesses would pay the price for this senseless war through higher prices, worse jobs, and reduced economic growth.

We urge Congress to discard any plans for increased protectionism, and instead urge lawmakers to work towards fostering stronger global economic ties through free trade.

The petition, signed by 1,028 economists, was published in Wall Street Journal on Wednesday

 

 

      1   2   3     

      1   2   3