Tell me how, specifically, in 100 words or less. 
Posted on 09/30/2004 4:35:23 PM PDT by rmlew
Up to now, offshoring of American jobs has been a political flashpoint but, judging by the responses of both parties, has been adjudged by the powers that be to be just another annoying political issue, which changes nothing fundamental and should be handled the way political issues usually are: by jockeying for position within the established policy consensus.
The Democrats, quintessentially John Kerry, have sought to make the smallest policy proposals sufficient to position themselves as the good guys on this issue for those voters that care about it. The Republicans, because they are in office, must defend a status quo they are no more or less responsible for than the Democrats, and are defending it using the same arguments that have always been used on the free-trade issue, as if nothing has changed.
Both responses are perfectly rational within the confines of ordinary day-to-day Washington politics, which is precisely why they have occurred. Unfortunately, both are completely deluded, because offshoring is already setting off a political earthquake that will reshape American politics for a generation. For in reality, free trade is dead and the only question is which party will figure this out fast enough to collect the burial fee.
The key to understanding why free trade is dead is to be honest about the fundamental way free trade is experienced by Americans as citizens of a high-wage nation:
Free trade is cheap labor embodied in goods.
Naturally, everyone wants the labor they consume, whether directly or embodied in goods, to be cheap. But as a wage earner, they also want the labor that they are paid for to be expensive.
Whether this is “efficient,” as academic economists understand this term, or not is irrelevant to the politics. This is shown by the fact that in American history there have been long-lived and stable electoral coalitions producing both free-trade and protectionist outcomes. Economists' theories about the efficiency of free trade touch the way voters actually experience trade peripherally at best and flatly contradict it at worst.
What is relevant to the politics is that this analysis implies the possibility, in a democracy, of a stable political coalition in which one part of society treats itself to cheap labor at the expense of another part. So long as the enjoyers of cheap labor exceed the victims in number, this coalition is viable.
For example, one could have a coalition of everyone who is not a manufacturing worker (roughly 85% of the population) against everyone who is. Manufacturing workers suffer the competition from cheap foreign labor, everyone else enjoys the cheap foreign goods, and a majority is happy. At least in the short run, before everyone begins to suffer the consequences of a depleted industrial base.
You may already see what the problem is and where this is going. What if the percentage balance in the coalition isn't stable? What if we go from 15% of the population harmed and 85% benefited to 30/70? Or 50/50? Or 70/30 the other way? The coalition starts to fall apart.
Free-traders have an argument here: they will tell us that even if we go to 90% or even 100% of the population being impoverished by competition with cheap labor, we will still be better off because goods will be cheaper.
The problem is, as is intuitively obvious to any laid-off factory worker who has contemplated the cheap knick-knacks on sale at Wal-Mart, that the drop in cost of living never matches the drop in wages. Like many free-trade arguments, it is qualitatively true but quantitatively false. The mitigating factors mitigate; they just don’t mitigate enough.
Don't believe this? Let's count up how many people have voted against incumbents because they were unemployed, and compare this to how many have done so because they couldn't buy a pair of scissors for $.99. Has there ever been a demonstration in the streets about the latter?
Free traders might have half an argument here if inflation were a live political issue today, but it isn't. Allan Greenspan has been worrying about deflation, not inflation. And given that the biggest inflationary factor looming on the horizon is the coming collapse of the dollar under the weight of accumulated trade deficits, they're better off not raising the topic.
But back to our electoral math: what offshoring has done is to radically shift the percentages of the electorate who fall into the two categories. So this beggar-my-neighbor coalition is starting to fall apart.
Of course, this takes time, as offshoring all the tens of millions of jobs that can now be offshored cannot be done overnight.
But what doesn't take nearly that much time is for the fear that this is going to happen to ripple through the electorate. Right now, people are taking a wait-and-see attitude, wondering if this is going to be just another one of those crises that were supposed to end life as we know it that never actually happened.
The problem is, unlike running out of oil in 1973, this is actually going to happen. Don’t believe it? It’ll probably only take another two years of empirical data for the trend to become dispositive.
As a result, the cozy acquiescence of a majority of Americans in letting free trade destroy American wages sector-by-sector is going to end. The dividing line between the winners and the losers, which the winners thought, as recently as the dot-com boom of a few years ago, would remain stable, has grown fluid.
Worse, no-one really knows where it will one day solidify. So no-one knows – on a personal, let alone political level – how to protect themselves.
Basically, there is not much left of the American economy that is invulnerable to offshoring. There are, basically, these jobs:
1. Those services that must be performed in person: cooking, policing, bagging groceries, teaching school, prostitution etc.
2. Those activities, like construction, that are performed on physical objects too large or heavy to be economically shipped from abroad.
3. Those activities, like agriculture, mining, and transportation, that are performed on, or relative to, objects fixed in place.
4. Those activities, like the practice of law or advertising, that depend upon peculiarly American knowledge that foreigners don’t have. But even this is rapidly breaking down as law firms, for example, start to offshore work.
5. Activities of government impinging upon sovereign power, like the military, or democratic legitimacy, like Congress. But given our use of mercenaries (sorry, “civilian security contractors”) in Iraq, clearly this can be nibbled away at in surprising ways.
6. Industries where America enjoys significant technological superiority tied to local labor pools or educational institutions, a rapidly-shrinking category.
7. Owning capital. Although not really a job, it's at least an occupation, and so long as America maintains a political consensus that rules out significant expropriation of capital, owners of capital gain from consuming cheaper labor and lose nothing.
The problem is, this isn't enough. In particular, it isn't a high enough number of high-wage jobs, as most, though obviously not all, of the jobs in these seven categories are relatively low-paid. This is largely inevitable, since jobs that must be done by hand, like stocking a Wal-Mart, are difficult to automate to increase their productivity.
So our little coalition starts to fall apart. What happens next?
For a start, the bad news for Republicans is that the psychological bourgeoisie starts to shrink. I use this term to describe everyone in the economy who identifies emotionally with the owners of capital, whether or not a majority of their income is investment income. All those yuppie financial analysts who may now get offshored are an obvious example, but there are far more people in this category, people all over American suburbia.
The key psychological bargain such people have until now had with the system is that economic forces are something that happen to other people. Someone with this attitude can indulge an amazingly dispassionate concern with economic efficiency.
More obnoxiously, he can explain that the jobs being lost are only "bad" jobs, while the jobs being kept, like his, are worth keeping. This is a wonderful way to covertly congratulate himself that his existence is a worthwhile one while that of a blue-collar worker is not. Thus the galloping narcissism of the baby-boomers becomes an emotional motor of globalist economics.
But that party's over, soon. It probably has only one presidential election cycle to go.
The bad news for Democrats is that they sold out so completely to free trade under Clinton that they've thrown away their natural position, earned over 60 years, as the party that protects Americans from the rougher edges of capitalism. With the classic stupidity of the imitator, they embraced free trade just before the fad went sour.
Either party could be the first to turn on free trade and thus capture public support on this issue. The Democrats could follow Ralph Nader's idea’s; the Republicans, Pat Buchanan’s. The fact that these wildly different figures oppose free trade is a strength, not the weakness the Wall St. Journal supposes, as it means that ending free trade can be credibly sold to people on either end of the political spectrum. Or packaged into a nice balanced pitch for the middle.
You want a right-wing America First appeal? You got it. You want a hippie sob-story about exploited workers? You can have that instead. You want a moderate and reasonable “commitment to a middle-class society?” Done.
Once the issue heats up some more after a few more rounds of depressing job-creation numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the only thing that will be keeping the status quo in place is the corrupt bargain of the American political duopoly, in which each party agrees with the other to not make trade an issue. This bargain is intrinsically unstable because of the temptation to score politically by defecting from it, so one must assume one party must eventually defect from it.
The other will have no choice but to follow or face electoral extinction, and America’s experiment with free trade, which has outlived its Cold War purpose of bribing foreign nations to not go communist, will finally be over.
marking
Tell me how, specifically, in 100 words or less.
My comments are due to his lefelong opposition to Jefferson. Jefferson had a thorough understanding of liberty and the nobler aspects of American freedom, while Hamilton seemed to me to act in self interest at the expense of the free individual. Just my opinion, but I'm not ignorant.
Bump to that --- nations with freedom and our values will have a better consumer base --- and potential for real trade --- we buying from them, they buying from us.
As you should know any governmental interference in the market place to change the allocation of resources must reduce the total output. This is true in the domestic economy as well as the world economy. One of the secrets of our economic success as a nation is that the Founders made sure that economic activity was not to be characterised by internal trade barriers such as crippled the German nation at that time.
That insight is not restricted to domestic arrangements but should be extended throughout the world.
Now this is just the ECONOMIC policy of optimization and it can be overruled for political purposes such as war considerations. And the Founders had no other way of paying for the government under the Constitution than through tariffs but that does not mean that total world output was not reduced by them.
I would not say you are ignorant in general but if that is your view of the early Founders you need to research them much more extensively.
Jefferson was one of the greatest hypocrits who ever held the presidency. His administration was a miserable failure except for having blundered into the Louisiana Purchase. His character was such that George Washington would not speak his name after he retired to Mount Vernon. Because of the treachery worked against the administration even while still Sec of State.
Hamilton on the other hand was perhaps the most important founder after Washington whose chief lietenant he was for almost twenty years. Virtually his entire adult life was devoted to the winning of REAL freedom for this nation as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky ideals of Jefferson. Hamilton was the greatest lawyer of his day and would have become fabulously wealthy had he not devoted the prime working years to the REvolution and creation of the federal government.
His life is a vast treasure chest of incredible acts and deeds and he was as great a hero as our nation has ever been blessed with.
Capitalism is the most revolutionary force in the world and it is its nature to force change, irresistible change. And there is no such thing as "globalization" that is just a commie buzzword. There is a World Economy and has been for almost 600 yrs and there is no going back to the little fiefdomes which preceded it.
This cannot be avoided and if you believe that we are living in times where change is slow I don't know what world it is you are seeing but it is NOT the world I look upon. I am watching the world change at a tremendous pace one that is uncomfortably fast. But trying to block it would as effective as putting a boulder in a flood.
You have not thought through the implications within your friend's situation. Let us say that Intel did not move its operations to India then eventually the price differential would become so great than some other company would do it to compete with Intel. Should that continue then Intel's profits would start to fall and layoffs would result.
Price differentials in the market cannot be ignored anymore than voltage potentials can in a circuit.
One of the greatest economic thinkers, Joseph Schumpeter, described the capitalistic process as one which has a heart of "Creative destruction." Progress only comes at the cost of destroying the old. But the problem is that any impediment to that process only increases the human suffering.
Then there is the question of what governmental body is capable of making correct decisions regarding these matters and how much power you want to turn over to it.
My answer would be "none" and "none."
What makes you think that independence would free us from the destruction embrace of the Moslemaniacs? Don't you know anything about Islam?
Much of the crap we buy from China requires and industrial base circa 1950. Danger from China comes from its theft of defense secrets and their purchase from the Clinton administration.
Your question wrt Boeing is incomprehensible therefore unanswerable.
If that were true, there would be zero jobs in this country.
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.