Posted on 03/10/2004 4:43:33 AM PST by 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.
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.
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...
Pushing the the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. Just go ahead and quote Marx, don't be shy.
You're right, so many people just assume that premise without question-- thanks.
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?
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.
"Demagoguery beats data in making public policy." -- Dick Armey
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.
Do you believe it was "marxist" to oppose slavery in the 19th century?
by Daniel T. Griswold
Daniel T. Griswold is associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies.
|
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. |
You're saying Bush did this or Wisconsin did it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.