LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

China PNTR benefits

Three cheers for Kansas Representatives Moran, Moore, Ryun and Tiahrt for their vote on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.

In the face of intense lobbying by certain protectionist businesses, labor leaders and environmental groups, they voted to continue our 55-year-old policy of building free trade, free markets and democracy throughout the world. Rather than helping the forces of oppression in China, a more open economy subverts the very system they try to maintain. It is worthy of mention that the largest lodge of the Machinists Union supported PNTR.

Some of the labor and business opponents argued that the U.S. would lose jobs. The truth is that in industries where we have high costs relative to other parts of the world, we will lose some jobs regardless of how the vote on PNTR turns out. Textiles, for example, move to lower cost areas. Our challenge is to grow industries and jobs in which we are the best, such as technology, services and agriculture. We have been doing that--far better than the Europeans or Japanese. U.S. exports have been growing much faster than domestic consumption. Jobs related to exports average 14 to 16% higher pay than non-export related jobs.

China's market of 1.2 billion people, already the sixth-largest market in the world for American agricultural products, is estimated to account for more than one-third of the growth in U.S. agricultural exports over the next decade. Kansas companies in the aircraft, power generation, construction and engineering sectors are well placed to go after the estimated $750 billion China will need to spend on infrastructure during the next 10 years.

Some critics hide their protectionism in concern for poor people in other countries. That is hypocrisy at its worst. The American-led drive for democracy, free trade and free markets has done more to improve the lives of most residents of this planet than any other political or economic policy in history. In the last decade, the number of people on the planet subsisting on less than $1 a day has been cut in half. During the 1970s and 1980s, the open economies grew at an average rate of 4.5%, while the closed economies averaged 0.7%. That means the open countries doubled their economies every 16 years, while the closed would need more than a century to do the same. If you consider health more important than prosperity, consider this: The freest countries have an average life expectancy of 76 years. The least free live to be 57.

Since 1986, 60 developing countries have unilaterally lowered their barriers to imports. The most recent success story is Mexico. In 1993, when Mexico was beginning to open its economy, it ranked 26th in the world in exports. Last year, Mexico ranked eighth and should pass South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong this year.

The American vision is not a "race to the bottom," with those of us who support freer trade selling out our children's futures like some characters on the "X-Files." Free trade is not about enriching corporate leaders. It is one of the tools, and a proven success, for bringing the rule of law, higher standards of living, higher levels of education, better health and peace to the world. If we abandon the vision of Truman, Marshall and Eisenhower out of fear of competition, we will have proven ourselves unworthy heirs to the ennobling ideas of the founders of this country.--Tim Witsman, Wichita (KS) Area Chamber of Commerce president.

Time for change!

We are at a crossroads in the agriculture industry.

The hog and poultry business has been changed permanently.

Probably, there still is a chance to save the cattle and grain business. We can go the route that would have us working for the IBP's. Cargill's, ADM's and Excel's, etc., where the best we can make is minimum wage, or we can bypass these processors and start investing in producer-owned co-ops.

We then would have total control of our products, from the beginning of production all the way to the consumer. Every year, there are fewer processors to sell to and as they merge and have more power, they have no incentive to give us a fair price!

Most farmers I know would like to buy or rent another farm and produce more commodities, with no thought to finding a market for what they produce.

What we should be doing is investing in producer-owned co-ops, which would do the processing and then market our product directly to the consumer.--Kenneth Schuster, Blackwater, MO.