Conflicting Definitions of Fair Trade Standards

By slamming the Bush administration’s textile policy (editorial, Dec. 3), The Times seems to say that China can do no wrong, whereas the administration, when it does try to enforce fair trade rules, can do no right. By placing quotas on three textile products, the administration acted because China illegally manipulates its currency, pours money into its state-owned, money-losing textile sector, gives exporters a 13% rebate and likes to loan money to its manufacturers and never asks for it to be repaid.

Imagine the response if the U.S. nationalized the textile industry, taxed imports by 40% by manipulating its currency, gave U.S. exporters a rebate of 13% and extended no-cost/no-pay loans to textile manufacturers. The Times would, justly, scream bloody murder. Instead of criticizing Bush, The Times should be defending the legitimate rights of U.S. workers who are losing their jobs every day because of unfair and illegal Chinese trade practices.

Cass Johnson

President (acting)

American Textile

Manufacturers Institute

Washington

*

“Free trade benefits this country and should be pursued.” So ends, quite correctly, your editorial. Last month’s series on Wal-Mart (Nov. 23-25) and Steve Lopez’s related column (Nov. 26) chastised Wal-Mart management for its global quest for good-quality, lowest-cost inventory. The irony is delicious: Wal-Mart, Target, Costco and other discount retailers define the benefits of free trade to the everyday consumer.

David Britton

Redondo Beach