ASIABIZBLOG

As further evidence of the negative feeling towards China, read this piece.

Citing three economists (Bernanke, Rogoff and Laurence Myer), as well as a handful of non-economist political figures, its authors claim that "some" American economists now view Chinese capital inflows into the U.S. as a necessary element of the credit collapse.

[Some. Indeed, three can mean "some." But the implication throughout the copy is that such sentiment is widespread among economists. What is going on in this article, anyway? Where is the editor?]

For the past five years, China has been one of the most prolific bidders [of Treasuries]. It holds $652 billion in Treasury debt, up from $459 billion a year ago. Add in its Fannie Mae bonds and other holdings, and analysts figure China owns $1 of every $10 of America’s public debt.

Evidently, these capital inflows are a root cause of America's current woes. Not only does there exist popular aniimus against Chinese goods, but among rational thinkers (economists) and decision-makers (senators) as well. At least, this is the claim.

Typical of the modern New York Times style, one which I find difficult to stomach, its authors ramble from reportage to opinion.

In the past decade, China arguably enabled an American boom. Low-cost Chinese goods helped keep a lid on inflation, while the flood of Chinese investment helped the government finance mortgages and a public debt of close to $11 trillion.

But Americans did not use the lower-cost money afforded by Chinese investment to build a 21st-century equivalent of the railroads. Instead, the government engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and consumers used loose credit to buy sport utility vehicles and larger homes. Banks and investors, eagerly seeking higher interest rates in this easy-money environment, created risky new securities like collateralized debt obligations.

“Nobody wanted to get off this drug,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who pushed legislation to punish China by imposing stiff tariffs. “Their drug was an endless line of customers for made-in-China products. Our drug was the Chinese products and cash.”

Mr. Graham said he understood the addiction: he was speaking by phone from a Wal-Mart store in Anderson, S.C., where he was Christmas shopping in aisles lined with items from China.

Very cute, that last paragraph. Another oft-employed stylistic device that brings the Op-Ed into the Front Section. This is rhetoric, employed to persuade. So what is the point?

My reading of the opinion burrowed deeply within this article is this: China's investment decisions are really of little consequence. Instead, American economists, political leaders and regulators -- the supposed anchors of our system -- have taken to foolishly blaming the hard-working people of China whose exports allowed us to live well, but cheaply. It is our own government administrations who are to blame.

While some [note my strategic and misleading use of "some"] of the claims in this article may be supported in fact, the trick of hiding political criticism in the World Section is a sham, a disservice to the reading public. Together with the cynical appeal to reader emotion and peppered with snide observations, one must question whether to rely upon the factual information the article purports to convey.