Looky here. Perhaps your lefty source didn't tell the entire story.
Posted on 02/18/2005 9:55:18 AM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
It is difficult to decide whether the trade figures for 2004 or the Bush Administration's reaction to them indicate the greater danger to the American economy and nation. Last year's trade deficit hit $617.7 billion -- surpassing the record 2003 deficit by 24 percent. The deficit in goods was even higher, at $666.2 billion. The imbalance increased as a share of the economy to 5.3 percent of gross domestic product, up from 4.5 percent in 2003. This is a situation usually associated with underdeveloped countries on the brink of financial collapse.
The Bush Administration is ideologically opposed to doing anything about the deteriorating international situation. It is content to passively accept whatever transnational corporations and foreign governments do to shape the world economy to their advantage. Attempts at positive spin took their most unbelievable form in Treasury Secretary John Snow's testimony to the Senate Budget Committee on February 10. "What those numbers reflect is the fact that the American economy has been doing well relative to other economies," he claimed. "We are importing more from those other economies because we are creating more disposable income."
Yet, according to Commerce Department figures released in January, disposable income by the third quarter of 2004 had increased at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. How does that translate into a 24 percent hike in the trade deficit? Snow apparently assumes that Americans will spend most of any increase in income on imports rather than on American made products. Why would this be true unless American firms are being beaten out by their foreign competitors?
This pattern is not seen elsewhere. Per capita income in Europe and Japan is on a par with America. The European Union actually has a larger combined economy than does the United States, with Japan in third place. Both the EU and Japan run trade surpluses, and in fact use their large gains in the U.S. market to boost their own economic output and income.
China does the same. It is growing three times as fast as the U.S., and its American trade surplus of $162 billion, up by $38 billion from 2003, is a sign of its strength as the rising manufacturing hub of Asia. Beating out the competition in foreign markets is the real sign of successful commerce and government policy, not losing market share to overseas rivals as has been the American case for over a decade.
Here is the fundamental error that has bedeviled political economy for centuries. Is international trade essentially about cooperation or competition? Classical liberals see free trade as creating a world peacefully arraigned by a division of labor and economic integration (a concept of global unity that goes well beyond trade). The Bush administration is in this camp. Those with a more realist or conservative bent see a world based on a more fundamental economic principle, relative scarcity. The first law of economics is that there is never enough to go around; wants are unlimited while the ability to satisfy those wants is limited at any point in time (though it can be increased over time). Thus, there is always competition to gain "the lion's share" of what is available, be it jobs, raw materials, industrial capacity or the means to advance to the next level of prosperity through the accumulation of capital and technology.
Everyone agrees that capitalism is based on competition. Firms are driven to innovate and expand or be left behind by their commercial rivals. What the free traders overlook is that there are societal consequences if the nation's capitalists consistently lose to foreign competitors, or abandon the nation for operations overseas (again in response to competitive pressures).
Americans understood this national aspect of competition during the decades when the United States attained global leadership. By the dawn of the 20th century, America was the largest, most productive economy in the world. In 1902, Brooks Adams published THE NEW EMPIRE proclaiming how American had surpassed Europe as the center of the world economy. While not as well known now as his brother Henry, Brooks was a prominent member of the 4th generation of the illustrious Adams family, counting from Founding Father President John Adams. Brooks and Henry Adams were in the intellectual circle surrounding President Teddy Roosevelt.
"The world seems agreed that the United States is likely to achieve, if indeed she has not already achieved, an economic supremacy. The vortex of the cyclone is New York. No such activity prevails elsewhere; nowhere are undertakings so gigantic, nowhere is administration so perfect; nowhere are such masses of capital centralized in single hands. And as the United States becomes an imperial market, she stretches out along the trade routes which lead from foreign countries to her heart, as every empire has stretched out from the days of Sargon to our own," wrote Adams.
The former global Superpower, Great Britain, according to Adams "is gradually assuming the position of a dependency, which must rely on us as the base from which she draws her food in peace, and without which she could not stand in war," a view borne out in the two world wars of the 20th century. Because London had adopted free trade while Washington still practiced protectionism in Adams' day, American firms were able to profit greatly from their penetration of the British Empire – much as the rising (reborn) empire of China is doing in the American market today.
Indeed, at the end of Adams's interpretative world economic history, he warns that the center of gravity may continue to shift, to Asia. Japan was a rising power in his time, but he thought in the long run China would prove more formidable. "Prudence, therefore, should dictate the adoption of measures to minimize the likelihood of sudden shocks," he advises. "American supremacy has been made possible only by applied science. The labors of successive generations of scientific men have established a control over nature which has enabled the United States to construct a new industrial mechanism, with processes surpassing perfect," he argues, but "America holds its tenure of prosperity only on condition that she can undersell her rivals."
One of my favorite passages also comes near the end of the work: "Life may be destroyed as effectively by peaceful competition as by war. A nation which is undersold may perish by famine as completely as if slaughtered by a conqueror. Therefore, men thrown into acute competition by rivals must have the ingenuity to secure an equality of equipment, else they will suffer; it may be by hunger, it may be by the sword, but in either case the purpose of nature will be attained. Nature abhors the weak."
While it is fashionable to dismiss works of that period as "social Darwinism," labels do not change how the world works, which is in ways just as intense now as ever. Brooks warned against the classical economists dogma of free trade. "Now men are apt to lecture on political economy as if it were a dogma, much as the nominalists and realists lectured in medieval schools. But a priori theories can avail little in matters which are determined by experiment....No one can say a priori what will succeed; the criterion is success." By this standard, U.S. trade policy is a failure, no matter how many academic economists claim it should be working in theory.
The dangerous situation in America today is no longer just one of particular industries being battered by foreign competition. The declining dollar indicates an impending financial meltdown, which would be a clear indicator of the nation's economic defeat in the global arena, and the coming end of its world leadership. America may no longer be a "new empire" but it would be tragic if its leaders allowed foreign rivals to push the country into a retirement home prematurely.
Your source is 2003.
You cite the Census Bureau as a leftist source and I agree. Nobody ever cites a stock market bubble or trough as a source of national wealth. Go figure. Those two phenomena are our own ups and downs. Sh^t happens when you are a free society.
Actually, his source was EPI, lefty "Think" tank.
Well good. I don't have a clue.
Funny you should mention that, I'm an IT manager myself, and business has never been better. My salary hasn't gone down since 2000, only up, and I've only added new employees. On my team alone, since 2000 I've added 5 additional guys or a 16% increase. What I have seen is the guys who were posers be exposed and have to move on to other careers, lost about 5 of those who were replaced.
Now there's a new "bubble", real estate. And we're talking huge dollars there, property values in some areas around here have doubled in the last 24 months, as ridiculous as it sounds. I know one agent personally that just sold an $800,000 lot, he took home close to 50K on that one transaction, so there are still "bubbles" out there, although they may be may be moving around.
High tech (not just IT) and real estate are still the drivers in this economy, along with the speculators. Unfortunately, not a lot of people have the priveledge or expertise to work in those fields. That's why the median is going down, the blue collar workers are getting hammered. Our middle class is seeing lower income, reduced benefits, and higher food and fuel costs. I'm glad I'm not personally in the trenches, but I do feel for those that are. If you don't own property, or have an advanced education and skillset, you're competing against practical slave labor in China. It's not a battle you're going to win.
I had no idea, it was the first link that came up. Facts are facts though, and this one shows incomes dropping, and all you've offered in counter is a smear.
Haven't found a better source, yet, but I noticed your source talked about household income, not household after tax income.
Do you think that the tax cuts since 2001 might have increased median after tax income?
Like I already said, if you have a better, no make that ANY source showing incomes are rising, let's see it. Thx.
Be more careful with the sites you link to. You wouldn't want to catch something nasty from a liberal site.
Congratulations to you. Why, in your ongoing prosperity, do you seem to condemn the Bush economic policy? (If I am wrong about that let me know.)
Now there's a new "bubble", real estate. And we're talking huge dollars there, property values in some areas around here have doubled in the last 24 months, as ridiculous as it sounds. I know one agent personally that just sold an $800,000 lot, he took home close to 50K on that one transaction, so there are still "bubbles" out there, although they may be may be moving around.
No doubt. In 1980, when I was a junior bond salesman for a major Southeastern bank I was absolutely beholden to the traders we had. They were gods and we were only people. I was using a preferencial bank financing scheme to buy my first house. The trader who I had the most faith in and the closest relationship with came over to my desk and said: "I can't believe you're buying a house at the top of the market."
I bought that house for 63,000 dollars. Today, after a 70'000$ addition it is worth $500,000.
High tech (not just IT) and real estate are still the drivers in this economy, along with the speculators. Unfortunately, not a lot of people have the priveledge or expertise to work in those fields. That's why the median is going down, the blue collar workers are getting hammered. Our middle class is seeing lower income, reduced benefits, and higher food and fuel costs. I'm glad I'm not personally in the trenches, but I do feel for those that are. If you don't own property, or have an advanced education and skillset, you're competing against practical slave labor in China. It's not a battle you're going to win.
Sorry. Life is tough. As John Wayne would say: "Life is tougher if you're stupid". Do you want a country that takes care of you or do you want a country that lets you do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone? What say you?
You need a book to tell you the river is rising, or can you just look down and see that the water is up to your knees???
I agree with willie.
Participation at this time is around 65%--quite low by historical standards.
And COLA-adjusted private wage is still trending downward since about 1976--more particularly since 2000.
There's good reason to be concerned about industrial investment levels in the US.
And even more good reason to examine very closely the CPI formulas invented by the Clintonistas and perpetuated by the Bushies.
Interesting graph.
It has NOTHING to do with "Manufacturing" as a share of GDP, of course.
So has Commerce re-defined "goods production" to fit some new political imperative?
Another whacko contribution from a two-bit bystander.
Not everyone can (or should) have advanced education or wealth and it does not mean that one is stupid.
And yes, the country/nation should take promote the general welfare of its citizens. Otherwise it is not worth to sacrifice for. Why the average "stupid" Joe should risk his life in defending the country which is a mere market place benefit the "smart" and rich? Or why should he care about folling the law and respecting rights, freedoms and property of the "smart" (for other reasons than being punished if caught)?
If the freemarketeers ideal were to be fully implemented in America - the United States would die.
Compared with 1967, the first year for which household income statistics are available, 2003 real (inflation adjusted) median household income is up 30 percent. Over this period, median income tended to rise and fall along with the business cycle. Real median income peaked in 1999, was unchanged in 2000, declined over the next 2 years (by a cumulative 3.3 percent), and was unchanged in 2003.
OR, the world should be frozen over by now according to some of the same kind of people's thinking from back in the 70s........
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.