Bush strikes back at critics of outsourcing

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

[GraniteStateConservative]

Jobs have a multiplier effect. The people who know the person who now has a job feel better about the economy and spend. The wages of that government employee are spent in the US and not in India. On and on...

[GraniteStateConservative]

It's the economy, stupid.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It sucks to be them, but I'm not Chinese, and you weren't talking about the Chinese, where you?

By the way, look to China, the government has decided to protect the right to private ownership, their per capita income is higher than India. They're coming fast, a billion people about to enter the world market.

"We have a few greedy mofo's who are extracting the wealth..."

Workers of the world, unite!!!

Yeah, you're a closet communist. Except, the only one who thinks you're still in the closet is you.

[Iscool]

keep buying the goods at Walmart that you couldn't otherwise afford.

This is another fallacy the un-Free Traders are trying to use as ammunition...Wal-mart is not all that much cheaper than anyone else...They try to stay in the 15% range...That is, they sell just a LITTLE cheaper than the competition to drive the competition out...Since everything they sell is from China, they could sell at 80% less than anyone else and still make billions each year...

[1rudeboy]

It's creating a fixed game through exploitation.

Pushing the the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. Just go ahead and quote Marx, don't be shy.

[expat_panama]

Post #29- if trade deficit, then "free trade" does not exist.

You're right, so many people just assume that premise without question-- thanks.

[FITZ]

The problem with this comparison is that these tools are not going the way of the buggy whip.

The earlier American presidents didn't sign globalist agreements encouraging buggy whips to be made in countries like China, they seemed happy enough that buggy whips were made by Americans --- I wonder what's behind the change in attitude?

[familyofman]

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

This seems to be the M.O. of the administration on everything - you're either with us or against us. It's like the battle between good & evil. Not much room for compromise or uniting - more of dividing.

I wonder if this is a Karl Rove tactic? If so, W could use some other advice on how to shape positions for consumption by the public. The country is already about evenly divided and by casting everything as black & white he doesn't give those on the fence much room for swaying.

[SolutionsOnly]

I understand all that.

And I also understand the objectives of the state controlled economy of totalitarian China that we are aiding and abetting with our current trade policies.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The reality is that many people are scared for their jobs."

They weren't a few months ago, the start of this fear coincided with the DNC's shift in attention away from the war in Iraq (now that US casualties have dropped and the situation is so improved attention needs to be diverted from this before the election), and toward a completely fabricated "crisis".

These people are "scared" because the media is scaring them.

[mountaineer]

From a few days ago: Americans, quit whining, compete: Hillary Clinton (Story on Outsourcing from Indian newspaper).

[1rudeboy]

"Underlying every argument against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman

"Demagoguery beats data in making public policy." -- Dick Armey

[FITZ]

I wonder if there is a big difference in who the big corporations --- like Walmart --- back in presidential elections --- I doubt they fear a democrat in the White House, they're probably donating to Kerry right now.

[lentulusgracchus]

"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."

Translation: No way are we going to interfere with outsourcing. Outsourcing companies are to be esteemed, not criticized for dumping U.S. workers.

This posture could cost Bush maybe 7,000,000 votes: the 3,000,000 who are going to lose their jobs will see it coming and take it out on Bush, whose Administration has been encouraging U.S. businesses to offshore, and so will another 3,000,000 people or so who will apprehend wrongly that they're likely to be thrown out of work, too. Then there's the multiplier effect of family and friends.

It doesn't matter how "good" the prices are at Wal-Mart if everything's made in China and you can't afford to shop at Wal-Mart or anywhere else.

[BikePacker]

Pushing the the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. Just go ahead and quote Marx, don't be shy.

Do you believe it was "marxist" to oppose slavery in the 19th century?

[hchutch]

Too bad the TRUTH is not a valid concept all too often. There is money to be made by demagouging this issue, don't you know?

[Luis Gonzalez]

America's Maligned and Misunderstood Trade Deficit

by Daniel T. Griswold

Daniel T. Griswold is associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.

Executive Summary

America's annual trade deficit, already large by historical standards, could reach a new record in 1998, fueling protectionist sentiment in Congress. Political fallout from the trade deficit numbers could impede efforts to reduce barriers to trade in the United States and abroad.

Contrary to popular conception, the trade deficit is not caused by unfair trade practices abroad or declining industrial competitiveness at home. Trade deficits reflect the flow of capital across international borders, flows that are determined by national rates of savings and investment. This renders trade policy an ineffective tool for reducing a nation's trade deficit.

A survey of America's major trading partners reveals no relationship between bilateral trade balances and openness to U.S. exports. For example, the U.S. runs a bilateral surplus with Brazil, which is relatively protectionist, while we run deficits with Canada and Mexico, which are almost totally open to U.S. exports thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement.

There is no connection between trade deficits and industrial decline. From 1992 and 1997, the U.S. trade deficit almost tripled, while at the same time U.S. industrial production increased by 24 percent and manufacturing output by 27 percent. Trade deficits do not cost jobs. In fact rising trade deficits correlate with falling unemployment rates. Far from being a drag on economic growth, the U.S. economy has actually grown faster in years in which the trade deficit has been rising than in years in which the deficit has shrunk. Trade deficits may even be good news for the economy because they signal global investor confidence in the United States and rising purchasing power among domestic consumers.

What matters to the economy is not the difference between imports and exports but the extent to which Americans are free to benefit from the efficiencies, opportunities and consumer choice created in an economy open to world trade.

[Edit35]

The bulk of "outsourcing" occurred in the last decade when companies by the scores developed overseas accounts and business deals.

However, we didn't call it outsourcing then. And of course, the lamestream press and the Dems were NOT going to push the issue.

[Prodigal Son]

Here is Wisconsin, using the tax dollars of her citizens to pay people in some other country to answer the telephone questions of the citizens of Wisconsin on how to get Wisconsin tax dollars since they don't have jobs.

You're saying Bush did this or Wisconsin did it?

[waverna]

Then the cheap goods get cheaper. A free economy will find an innovative way