It’s hard
for me to equate patriotism with the international trade concept of comparative
advantage. Somehow consumers should
abandon the best value and quality proposition in a commercial transaction if
the creator lacks U.S. citizenry. I
understand the view that domestic employment matters, but should U.S. consumers
bear the possibly severe financial consequences of their government’s efforts
to handicap foreign competitors?
Is every Walmart customer an economic traitor?
Years ago,
domestic car unions, manufacturers and politicians wanted consumers to think
twice about buying foreign made vehicles.
See https://www.npr.org/2017/02/23/516787778/auto-workers-union-to-launch-buy-american-campaign Now the patriotism litmus test applies to wireless
networks, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/technology/fcc-huawei-zte-national-security.html
and new this week, the Tik-Tok social networking app: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/07/07/business/07reuters-usa-tiktok-china-pompeo.html.
I cannot
understand where to draw the line between legitimate national security and
foreign espionage concerns versus thinly veiled market protectionism. The FCC hasn’t helped with its recent
determination that Chinese telecommunications equipment manufacturers Huawei
and ZTE pose acute national security threats: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-designates-huawei-and-zte-national-security-threats. The FCC relies heavy on conjecture,
circumstantial evidence and anecdotes.
That may suffice, but a strategy of handicapping foreign market leaders
also constitutes a factor in light of the Commission’s multifaceted campaign to
reclaim 5G market “leadership.” See https://www.fcc.gov/5G.
I suggest
our government officials slow down and consider the consequences of their existing
and prospective actions. A downward
spiraling trade war appears possible and rarely does anyone benefit from a “beggar
thy neighbor strategy”. See https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/beggarthyneighbor.asp.
Similarly,
I suggest we take a deep dive on the concept of punishing Chinese government data
mining and analytics made possible by U.S. consumer subscriptions to
Tik-Tok. How is this form of governmental
surveillance substantially worse than similar tactics of private ventures? Why do the governments of Russia and other
adversaries get a pass if the risk to elections, civil society and trust is arguably
equivalent?
Closing the
U.S. market to ventures offering a better mousetrap seems misguided, because it
insulates domestic ventures from having to compete robustly and strive to
enhance the value proposition of their goods and services. I don’t support spying by foreign commercial
ventures serving as agents for their governments, but I don’t want our nation
to further disengage at great expense to its citizens.
