Bush strikes back at critics of outsourcing

The Financial Times ^ | 9. March 2004 | Edward Alden

[1rudeboy]

President George W. Bush hit back at Democratic critics of his administration's job-creation efforts on Tuesday, branding them as "economic isolationists" who would raise new trade barriers and damage the US economy.

The comments came as part of what appeared to be a co-ordinated administration effort to respond to growing political pressures over the slow pace of US job growth, which has helped push Mr Bush's likely Democratic opponent, John Kerry, ahead of the president in several recent polls.

In a speech in Virginia, Mr Bush said: "There are economic isolationists in our country who believe we should separate ourselves from the rest of the world by raising up barriers and closing off markets. They're wrong. If we are to continue growing this economy and creating new jobs, America must remain confident and strong about our ability to trade in the world."

Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, similarly warned Congress on Tuesday that "given the fact we're now in a stage of an economic recovery, the absolutely worst thing we could do would be to turn to economic isolationism".

Mr Zoellick told the Senate finance committee that increasing US exports to countries such as China and India, encouraging foreign investment in the US, and helping workers adjust to the loss of some jobs abroad were better responses than "bureaucratic interventions that will increase prices to our people".

Mr Bush's comments came less than a week after the Senate passed legislation aimed at preventing US government contracts from being carried out by workers in developing countries.

The administration has been uncertain over how to respond to the continued slow pace of job creation. Mr Bush has sought to distance himself from recent remarks by a senior economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, that outsourcing of jobs is just a part of trade and therefore good for the US economy. But the administration now appears set to mount a more robust defence of companies that move US jobs abroad.

"US companies with foreign affiliates now account for about 58 per cent of our exports," said Mr Zoellick. "So the companies that do business overseas are also exporting overseas."

"I think the challenge is: How do you help people in a way that doesn't hurt or kill other jobs?" he said, pointing out that the US currently runs a $60bn annual trade surplus in the service sector, which has seen a growing number of jobs moved to lower-wage countries.

[1rudeboy]

BTW are we all now using outsourced to mean offshored?

Unfortunately, yes. Just as we now use "free trade" to mean "anything that costs somebody his or her job."

[tm22721]

Bush would be well advised to remember the following:

You can always vote for a living if you can't work for a living.

BUMP

[CSM]

How would you grow the market for any industry without growing globally? The US market is very stagnent and the foriegn markets are necessary for our manufacturers growth. Can you address this issue without growing the infrastructure of foriegn lands?

I am asking this seriously, not trying to take a dig. I am hoping someone can make suggestions that I can learn from.

[Iscool]

I doubt that this is going to go over well with the general public

Unfortunately, quite a bit of the general public agrees with Bush...It's not just Wal-Mart...You can hardly walk in to any small retail business and find something made in the US...These people LOVE that Chinese junk that they are selling to us...Profits are huge...And there's a lot of them folks...

This is another part that bugs me...encouraging foreign investment in the US,

They want us to think this is a good plan...The Communist Chinese just bought 3 Iron Ore mines, in Pennsylvania...That's what our gov't is pushing...

[BikePacker]

Kerry holds the EXACT SAME POSITION as Bush, and his voting record proves that fact.

Please.

He voting for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO, and Permenant Most Favored Nation trade status for China.

Can't get more Free-Traitor than that...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer." -- Adam Smith

[Luis Gonzalez]

So, someone who advocates freedom is a traitor?

[Happy2BMe]

"The administration has been uncertain over how to respond to the continued slow pace of job creation. Mr Bush has sought to distance himself from recent remarks by a senior economic adviser, Gregory Mankiw, that outsourcing of jobs is just a part of trade and therefore good for the US economy. But the administration now appears set to mount a more robust defence of companies that move US jobs abroad."

We'd settle for just stopping the migrant invasion from Mexico, Mr. President.

[SolutionsOnly]

***"Maybe not free on their end, but free on ours. And that's all that matters. As long as our markets are free, we will continue to greatly outpace them economically as we have for decades."***

In which case, Lou Dobbs should be receiving no criticism for his reporting on illegal immigration, trade deficits, and outsourcing. It educates the American consumer who can then vote with their dollars. But without those like Lou Dobbs who are willing to take the heat by merely exposing wht's really going on, we are talking about skewed situation. If the consumer is informed and still chooses to cast his dollar vote with the imported laborer/product then I'm OK with it.

[CSM]

"Ya that's right...

They are soo flippin selfish for not wanting to default on their mortgage."

Yes, if they vote for Kerry. He would abandon the war on terror to an international "police" agency. To cast a ballot for someone who would surrender a war in the name of saving an individual job is selfish.

The federal governments highest priority should be defense, not job creation. They should reduce the regulatory involvement and free up the markets.

[GraniteStateConservative]

But the administration now appears set to mount a more robust defence of companies that move US jobs abroad.

This must be some real strategery because that sentence sounds like a lousy plan.

[expat_panama]

have a problem - a major problem - with those who would sell their own mother

We can all agree that it's wrong for "those who would sell their own mother" but the article doesn't mention that.    In your post #12 and the response #19, the objection was to some making more money than others.  We now agree that it's ok for some to make more money than others.  

You are using a computer with chips made in China.   In the last decade you have taken medicines that were researched and developed overseas.  Let's agree that there's nothing wrong with either buying those goods and services or profiting there from.  Let's continue with what we agree on and see where it goes.  Of course, there are lots of things we can disagree about but life is very short and I consider it an 'abandonment of ethics, morals, or principle' for people to just attack for the sake of making others feel bad.  Unless when I do it --then it's just a forgivable human failing. ;-)

[BikePacker]

Freedom??? Bwhahahahahahha!

Ask those Chinese workers who are locked in factories for their shifts, and dormitories in their "off time" about FREEDOM.

We have a few greedy mofo's who are extracting the wealth of this country's consumers by leveraging the labor of countries with lower standards of living.

This isn't "innovation". It isn't increased efficiency. It's creating a fixed game through exploitation.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Agreed. If that's a summation of Rove's plan, it's a real stinker.

[KevinDavis]

Probably some Pat Buchanan supporters as well.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"But the administration now appears set to mount a more robust defence of companies that move US jobs abroad."

The alternative of course, being mounting an attack on those companies.

Now, there's a conservative concept, the government attacking private enterprises.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The term "economic isolationists" is unfortunate. It frames the debate as binary, either/or choice between two extreme positions.

Worse, it puts him at odds with more aware GOP politicians in states suffering from job losses-- like Richard Burr, Sue Myrick, Robin Hayes, etc. in NC.

[PigRigger]

WOW - You really don't get it. Maybe you are so distant from this issue it doesn't affect you - I don't know.

Whether the policy is sound or unsound is not the point. The reality is that many people are scared for their jobs. Theses are well educated, middle class, white collar worker. Most of them vote Republican.

If these types decide NOT to vote Republican in November; the Democrats can pull it out.

Again, the debate is not over policy - its over keeping ones jobs - it's about being secure in knowing that you can provide for your family.

Let's not start up with the typical response that they should have seen this coming, or, they should have prepared for this, or my favorite, go start your own business. Let's be clear, this is new to the white collar world, and its not very appealing.

When is the last time the US economy grew at such rates with such little job growth. It appears that we are entering a new era - one where no job is safe and expectations of changing careers multiple times should be expected.

Realistically, do you think most Americans will embrace the idea of knowing they may have to change careers 2 or 3 times during their working years? Should that excite them? In the end, is it practical and at what cost?

Not trying to give you are hard time. It just appears that a major paradigm is about to hit us full force - and most Americans are not prepared to absorb the fallout.

[expat_panama]

Re your #54: Great link- please remember to ping me too next time.