Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Establishment Rethinks Globalization
The Nation ^ | April 12, 2007 | William Greider

Posted on 04/14/2007 9:55:38 AM PDT by A. Pole

The church of global free trade, which rules American politics with infallible pretensions, may have finally met its Martin Luther. An unlikely dissenter has come forward with a revised understanding of globalization that argues for thorough reformation. This man knows the global trading system from the inside because he is a respected veteran of multinational business. His ideas contain an explosive message: that what established authorities teach Americans about global trade is simply wrong--disastrously wrong for the United States.

Martin Luther was a rebellious priest challenging the dictates of a corrupt church hierarchy. Ralph Gomory, on the other hand, is a gentle-spoken technologist, trained as a mathematician and largely apolitical. He does not set out to overthrow the establishment but to correct its deeper fallacies. For many years Gomory was a senior vice president at IBM. He helped manage IBM's expanding global presence as jobs and high-tech production were being dispersed around the world.

The experience still haunts him. He decided, in retirement, that he would dig deeper into the contradictions. Now president of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, he knew something was missing in the "pure trade theory" taught by economists. If free trade is a win-win proposition, Gomory asked himself, then why did America keep losing?

The explanations he has developed sound like pure heresy to devout free traders. But oddly enough, Gomory's analysis is a good fit with what many ordinary workers and uncredentialed critics (myself included) have been arguing for some years. An important difference is that Gomory's critique is thoroughly grounded in the orthodox terms and logic of conventional economics. That makes it much harder to dismiss. Given his career at IBM, nobody is going to call Ralph Gomory a "protectionist."

He did not nail his "theses" to the door of the Harvard economics department. Instead, he wrote a slender book--Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests--in collaboration with respected economist William Baumol, former president of the American Economic Association.

[...]

Gomory's critique has great political potential because it provides what the opponents of corporate-led globalization have generally lacked: a comprehensive intellectual platform for arguing that the US approach to globalization must be transformed to defend the national interest. Still, it will take politicians of courage to embrace his ideas and act on them. Gomory's political solutions are as heretical as his economic analysis.

At IBM back in the 1980s, Gomory watched in awe as Japan and other Asian nations captured high-tech industrial sectors in which US companies held commanding advantage. IBM invented the disk drive, then dropped out of the disk-drive business, unable to compete profitably. Gomory marveled at Singapore, a tiny city-state, as it lured American manufacturers with low-wage labor, capital subsidies and tax breaks. The US companies turned Singapore into a global center for semiconductor production.

[...]

"The offer that many Asian countries will give to American companies is essentially this: 'Come over here and enhance our GDP. If you are here our people will be building disk drives, for example, instead of something less productive. In return, we'll help you with the investment, with taxes, maybe even with wages. We'll make sure you make a profit.' This works for both sides: the American company gets profits, the host country gets GDP. However, there is another effect beyond the benefits for those two parties--high-value-added jobs leave the U.S."

China and India, he observes, are now doing this on a large scale. Microsoft and Google opened rival research centers in Beijing. Intel announced a new, $2.5 billion semiconductor plant that will make it one of China's largest foreign investors. China's industrial transformation is no longer about making shirts and shoes, as some free-trade cheerleaders still seem to believe. It is about capturing the most advanced processes and products.

The multinationals' overseas deployment of capital and technology, Gomory explains, is the core of how some very poor developing nations are able to ratchet up their technological prowess, take over advanced industrial sectors and rapidly expand their share in global trade--all with the help of US companies and finance, as they roam the world in search of better returns.

The Gomory-Baumol book describes this as "a divergence of interests" between multinational firms and their home country. "This overseas investment decision may then prove to be very good for that multinational firm," they write. "But there remains the question: Is the decision good for its own country?" In many cases, yes. If the firm is locating low-skilled industrial production in a very poor country, Americans get cheaper goods, trade expands for both sides and the result is "mutual gain." But the trading partners enter a "zone of conflict" if the poor nation develops greater capabilities and assumes the production of more advanced goods. Then, the authors explain, "the newly developing partner becomes harmful to the more industrialized country." The firm's self-interested success "can constitute an actual loss of national income for the company's home country."

[...]

"The situation today is that the companies have discovered that using modern technology they can do all that overseas and pay less for labor and then import product and services back into the United States. So what we're doing now is competing shovel to shovel. The people in many countries are being equipped with as good a shovel or backhoe as our people have. Very often we are helping them make the transition. We're making it person-to-person competition, which it never was before and which we cannot win. Because their people will be paid a third, a quarter of what our people are paid. And it's unreasonable to think you can educate our people so well that they can produce four times as much in the United States."

As this shift of productive assets progresses, the downward pressure on US wages will thus continue and intensify. Free-trade believers insist US workers can defend themselves by getting better educated, but Gomory suggests these believers simply don't understand the economics. "Better education can only help," he explains. "The question is where do you put your technology and knowledge and investment? These other countries understand that. They have understood the following divergence: What countries want and what companies want are different."

The implication is this: If nothing changes in how globalization currently works, Americans will be increasingly exposed to downward pressure on incomes and living standards. "Yes," says Gomory. "There are many ways to look at it, all of which reach the same conclusion."

I ask Gomory what he would say to those who believe this is a just outcome: Americans become less rich, others in the world become less poor. That might be "a reasonable personal choice," he agrees. "But that isn't what the people in this country are being told. No one has said to us: 'You're probably a little too rich and these other folks are a little too poor. Why don't we even it out?' Instead, what we usually hear is: 'It's going to be good for everyone. In the long run we're going to get richer with globalization.'"

Gomory and Baumol are elaborating a fundamental point sure to make many economists (and political leaders) sputter and choke. Contrary to dogma, the losses from trade are not confined to the "localized pain" felt by displaced workers who lose jobs and wages. In time, the accumulating loss of a country's productive base can injure the broader national interest--that is, everyone's economic well-being.

[...]

The conventional win-win assurances, they explain, are facile generalizations that ignore the complexity of the trading system--the myriad differences in country-to-country relationships and the vast realm of government actions and policy interventions designed to shape the outcomes. "Many of our 'dismal science' colleagues speak unguardedly as though they believe free trade cannot fail, no matter what," Baumol said.

Some nations, in other words, do indeed become "losers." Gomory fears the United States is now one of them--starting to go downhill. When he and Baumol wrote their book, they figured US trade relations with China and India produced "mutual gain" for both ends. The United States got cheaper goods, China and India got jobs and a start at industrialization. But the rapid improvements in those two nations during the past decade, Gomory thinks, are putting the United States in the bind where their gain becomes our loss.

Essentially, the terms of trade have changed as more and more value-added production has shifted from the United States to its poorer trading partners. America, he explains, becomes increasingly dependent, buying from abroad more and more of what its citizens consume and producing relatively less at home. US incomes stagnate as the high-wage jobs disappear and US exports become a smaller share of the world total.

The persistent offshoring of domestic production is leading to a perverse consequence: The United States finds itself paying more for imports. The production that originally moved offshore to get low-wage labor and cheaper goods is now claiming a larger and larger share of national income, as the growing trade deficits literally subtract from US domestic growth. "All the stuff you were already importing from them becomes more expensive," Gomory explains. "That's why you can start going downhill--because you pay more for what you were previously getting." Put another way, one hour of US work no longer buys as many hours of Chinese work as it once did. China can suppress its domestic wages to keep selling more of its stuff, but that does not alter the fundamental imbalance in productive strength.

[...]

Gomory's proposed solution would change two big things (and many lesser ones). First, the US government must intervene unilaterally to cap the nation's swollen trade deficit and force it to shrink until balanced trade is achieved with our trading partners. The mechanics for doing this are allowed under WTO rules, though the emergency action has never been invoked by a wealthy nation, much less the global system's putative leader. Capping US trade deficits would have wrenching consequences at home and abroad but could force other nations to consider reforms in how the trading system now functions. That could include international rights for workers, which Gomory favors.

Second, government must impose national policy direction on the behavior of US multinationals, directly influencing their investment decisions. Gomory thinks this can be done most effectively through the tax code. A reformed corporate income tax would penalize those firms that keep moving high-wage jobs and value-added production offshore while rewarding those that are investing in redeveloping the home country's economy.

US companies are not only free of national supervision but actively encouraged to offshore production by government policy and tax breaks. Other advanced economies have sophisticated national industrial policies, plus political and cultural pressures, that guide and discipline their multinationals, forcing them to adhere more closely to the national interest.

Neither of Gomory's fundamental policy reforms--balancing trade or imposing discipline on US multinationals--can work without the other. Both have to be done more or less at once. If the government taxed US multinational behavior without also capping imports, the firms would just head out the door. "That won't work," Gomory explains, "because you will say to the companies, 'This is how we're going to measure you.' And the corporations will say, 'Oh, no, you're not. I'm going overseas. I'm going to make my product over there and I'll send it back into the United States.' But if you insist on balanced trade, then the amount that's shipped in has to equal the amount that's shipped out by companies. If no companies do that, then nothing can be shipped in either. If you balance trade, you are going to develop internal companies that work the way you want." Public investment in new technologies and industries, I would add, may not achieve much either, if there is no guarantee that the companies will locate their new production in the United States.

Essentially, Gomory proposes to alter the profit incentives of US multinationals. If the government adds rules of behavior and enforces them through the tax code, companies will be compelled to seek profit in a different way--by adhering to the national interest and terms set by the US government. Other nations do this in various ways. Only the United States imagines the national interest doesn't require it.

[...]


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: clintonistas; duncanhunter; freetrade; globalism; jobs; manufacturing; market; socialists; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last
To: expatpat
Wish the article were more concise and incisive, though.

I'll wait for someone to make the economic argument directly and clearly, without all of the orchestration and decoration. When people write as this author does I just assume they're lying and move on.

41 posted on 04/14/2007 12:28:01 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll
Globalism spells our demise.

Neither you nor this article define "globalism" or state clearly and succinctly why it is bad for America.

42 posted on 04/14/2007 12:30:56 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

Some complex problems are beyond simple writing. The concepts are too complex. If you want to understand them, then you have to make the effort to absorb the material.

You’re looking for a common sense, easily understood explanation where none is possible. This is how people end up believing slogans and bumper stickers.


43 posted on 04/14/2007 12:33:21 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam

My definition of Globalism is: Deletion of the sovereignty of the U.S.. Regional government = Erasure of borders to combine Canada, the U.S. and Mexico into one part of the global government ie: The North American Union, which GW Bush signed us into immediately upon his second election. This is much like the ammalgamation of Europe, to which the UK will soon join, from all recent appearances. In other words, it is the New World Order, so championed by the Bush family, in concert with the Clintons.


44 posted on 04/14/2007 12:44:08 PM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Fifteen years latter and someone inside has finally pulled his head out long enough observe reality.

Will wonders never cease?


45 posted on 04/14/2007 12:59:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking it's heritage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

bump for later reading


46 posted on 04/14/2007 1:12:53 PM PDT by Kevmo (Duncan Hunter just needs one Rudy G Campaign Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVBtPIrEleM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

Does this mean we all have to play hockey and soccer?


47 posted on 04/14/2007 1:14:47 PM PDT by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Those last two grafs raise an interesting question, given the Corporate relocation of Halliburton:

Do you s’pose that the Halliburton Board anticipates the changes espoused by Gomory will occur in the next few years?

Hmmmmm???


48 posted on 04/14/2007 1:18:27 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the anti-liberal; A. Pole

Good question.

Another way to do it would be to impose tariffs on incoming goods AND tax-incentives on US exports.

Or we could manipulate the currency a bit.


49 posted on 04/14/2007 1:20:06 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HardStarboard

You think “rights for workers” is intrinsically evil?

Please...


50 posted on 04/14/2007 1:22:09 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: what's up

The question is not ‘whether the Commies will go capitalist.’

They have, in PRChina.

The question is ‘whether PRChina’s interests are superior to those of the US.’

So long as PRC is willing to sacrifice its workers to the God of Money, the US should look very carefully at whether “global trade” is good for the US.

I don’t defend UAW excesses. But it’s hard to call the Fair Labor Act “excessive” just as it’s hard to call safety, health coverage, and ecological protection “excessive” ipso facto.

The usual disclaimers apply...


51 posted on 04/14/2007 1:25:53 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: RockyMtnMan

It’s no accident that the net worth of US Senators climbs at a much higher rate than that of the US population as a whole.

And they don’t really make all that much money, either. $175K or so is ‘upper-middle’, not ‘upper’ class...


52 posted on 04/14/2007 1:27:38 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chipengineer
If other countries become economically freer, they will eventually become richer

We know.

PRChina has the largest stash of USD in the entire world.

53 posted on 04/14/2007 1:30:22 PM PDT by ninenot (Minister of Membership, Tomas Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: what's up

“But the leaders of our society will carry American forward and a rising tide will life all boats in the US of A as usual.”

Wow, are you a dreamer. You would have done well in Herbert Hoover’s Cabinet.


54 posted on 04/14/2007 1:50:48 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: oldbill
You would have done well in Herbert Hoover’s Cabinet,

LOL. No, I would have done very poorly.

I would have gone against the grain in counselling Hoover to lower taxes on the upper classes.

55 posted on 04/14/2007 2:05:50 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
If you are against preferential treatment of your countrymen, what is the point in having a country?

I find that few people understand this. I've been singing this song for years. Maybe they'll listen to that other guy.

56 posted on 04/14/2007 2:18:12 PM PDT by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ninenot

>Or we could manipulate the currency a bit.<

I’m afraid China will go out of US dollars, as OPEC has threatened to do. China owns most of our debt. If they both switch to the Euro, our goose is cooked.


57 posted on 04/14/2007 2:49:48 PM PDT by Paperdoll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
There is noone on this board that hates the UN more than I do.

Global trade is a totally separate issue from national sovereignty.

The two meet when trade agreements are negotiated. Then the socialists from all countries make rules that hurt all of us.

We can be winners in global trade if we have the freest economy. Since both Republicans and Democrats pile on more rules, laws, restrictions every day that Congress meets the outlook is not good--but you should not confuse cause and effect.

A protectionist highly regulated economy is doomed.


58 posted on 04/14/2007 3:48:39 PM PDT by cgbg (We eight-eight flops of horse manure. We have tenure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: what's up
So the fight is always ongoing. It's when you cease to fight for freedom...that's when you lose it.

Wouldn't that include American workers fighting to keep their jobs, their homes and the ability to care for their families.

59 posted on 04/14/2007 4:58:06 PM PDT by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cgbg
there is no assurance that the US will be an overall net gainer in the transaction.

While you are technically correct, the reality is that any country that has freedom, true freedom for individuals and companies to innovate and reap the rewards of that innovation, will never fail to prosper. The problem we have in the US right now is the leaden hand of government rests soggily on the engine of our growth, and gains weight and mass every day.

60 posted on 04/14/2007 5:01:41 PM PDT by Hardastarboard (DemocraticUnderground.com is an internet hate site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-169 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson