OK, that's a decent point. However, the primary political influence that export politics has over our government is in the area of foreign policy. But when we're dependent on the influx of cheap goods from China and elsewhere, this gives these governments direct influence over our domestic economy, independent of whatever direct influence it might give them over our government. The problem is compounded by our trade deficit, which enables these governments to hoard dollars and use them to influence our financial affairs. Further still, there's also more than just economic influence.
This of course doesn't even get into what happens when we start becoming dependent on certain countries for certain products. If China or Japan decide not to increase their quota for American timber, some people in the timber business might not make as much money as they otherwise would. But if Saudi Arabia starts interrupting the flow of oil to us, that kind of thing can create shock waves.
The problem is compounded by our trade deficit, which enables these governments to hoard dollars and use them to influence our financial affairs.
The hoard of dollars is an ephemeral mirage. Since the introduction of the FRN backed by national debt, it becomes a wasting asset that if not quickly returned in trade it becomes valueless with time.
We receive hard goods, assets and resources and preserve our resources for those critical times when they are not available from the world (i.e. war). They receive a trade dollar that depreciates. Who comes out ahead in the long run?
Unfortunately for our own people, those who hold on to that "dollar" not putting it to work in our economy suffer the same fate. Ask any one on a fixed retirement income as to what that means.
However, the primary political influence that export politics has over our government is in the area of foreign policy.
Is that not what I have stated. From our perspect, the drive for the maximum immediate return is our own undoing. We as an impatient populace with short time horizons for gratification, place our government at disadvantage in the realm of international agreements. The political influence derives from our own demands, not from some government overbeing seeking a malicious power over or citizenry.
But when we're dependent on the influx of cheap goods from China and elsewhere, this gives these governments direct influence over our domestic economy
The dependancy is more apparent than real. The benefit accrues to our own economy in the form of maintaining competitive pricing pressures and an advantage to the American consumer. I foreign influence imposes a cost greater than we wish to pay as a people, the fix lay in the Commerce Clause when the American consumer wants it used.
As far as your hyperlink,
China is set to allow News Corporation and AOL Time Warner access to its domestic television audiences in return for their agreeing to distribute a Chinese government-sponsored channel in the US.
If we demand access to the market, what do you expect? Is that not merely direct evidence of what I stated that Export, in this case demand for access to their television markets, as the driving force in foreign intrusions into our affairs? If we cannot countenance a Chinese government sponsored channel in the US. The commerce clause provides the political tool to limit that access. That is called the exercise of sovereignty, but only comes about with the will to exercise it.
You seem to expect access to other nations without condition. That is not the way it works when open societies attempt to enter the markets of closed societies. Demand entry, they demand concessions. What do you expect? If they concessions are a greater price than the nation is willing to pay, then don't enter the agreement, exercise restraint and don't enter the agreement, there is no leverage they can apply without our conceeding it to them.
But if Saudi Arabia starts interrupting the flow of oil to us, that kind of thing can create shock waves.
Yep, like encouraging us towards developing our own resources, when international sources place the price high enough to make it necessary to do so. In the meantime, they give us their consumable oil, we give them depreciating dollars at a very low cost to our nation. If the danger is greater than we care to put up with, there is always the Commerce Clause, when we decide as a nation to impose that limitation on ourselves.
The choices are, and always have been our own. The consequences of bad choices as well as good one come home to roost. That is what sovereignty means, and I certainly do not see any diminishement in our choice to act in our own interests when we choose to do so.