Patrick J. Buchanan Examines "The Slow Awakening of George W."

Washington Times ^ | 09-17-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Theodore R.]

The slow awakening of George W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: September 17, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Last July, U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick delivered a halftime pep talk to dispirited globalists, thrown on the defensive by the hemorrhaging of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

"What ... a surprise," Zoellick railed at his troops, "to see that the proponents of [free trade] ... have so often abandoned the debate to the economic isolationists and purveyors of fright and retreat."

But by September, Zoellick's own boss seemed to be drifting toward the camp of the "economic isolationists and purveyors of fright."

At a rally in Ohio, which has lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs since mid-2000, President Bush railed: "We've lost thousands of manufacturing jobs because production moved overseas. ... America must send a message overseas – say, look, we expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to trade."

Yes, friends, at long last, we have their attention.

What's behind this radically revised presidential rhetoric? It is this: U.S. manufacturing jobs are vanishing, and unless he turns it around, Bush's presidency may vanish along with them.

The numbers are breathtaking. Manufacturing jobs have been disappearing for 37 straight months. Not since the Depression have we lost production jobs three years in a row. Since 2000, one in every six manufacturing jobs, 2.7 million, has disappeared. These jobs paid an average wage of $54,000.

Unfortunately for President Bush, while he has a good heart, he was horribly miseducated at Harvard. He simply cannot comprehend that it is free-trade globalism that is destroying U.S. manufacturing jobs, and may yet destroy his presidency.

The serial killer of manufacturing jobs is imports, which are now equal to almost 15 percent of GDP, four times the level they held between 1860 and 1960. What has caused this flood of imports? The trade deals that people like Robert Zoellick negotiate and George W. Bush celebrates.

Consider the numbers.

In July alone, the United States exported $86.1 billion in goods and services. But we imported $126.5 billion, for a trade deficit of $40.4 billion. The total trade deficit for 2003 is estimated at between $480 billion and $500 billion. But the deficit in goods will run closer to $550 billion.

The president's father and Bill Clinton contended that every $1 billion in exports created 20,000 jobs. Thus, a $550 billion trade deficit kills 11 million production and manufacturing jobs.

Say goodbye to blue-collar America.

What is the Bush prescription for curing this metastasizing cancer? In Ohio, he declared, "See, we in America believe we can compete with anybody, just so long as the rules are fair, and we intend to keep the rules fair."

How, Mr. President?

Consider the nation that runs the largest trade surplus with us. In July, we bought $13.4 billion in goods from China and sold China $2.1 billion. U.S. imports from China this year should come in around $160 billion, and U.S. exports to China at $25 billion.

We will thus buy 10 percent of the entire GDP of China, while she buys 0.25 percent of the GDP of the United States. Is this "fair trade"? But how does Bush propose to close this exploding deficit? How can he?

Where a U.S. manufacturing worker may cost $53,000 a year, a factory in China – with $53,000 and using the same machinery and technology as a U.S. factory – can employ 25 reliable, intelligent, hardworking Chinese at $1 an hour.

If you force U.S. businessmen to pay kids who sweep the floor a $5-an-hour minimum wage, while their rivals pay highly skilled Chinese workers $1 an hour, how do you square that with the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws?

Does the president, when he goes on about keeping "the rules fair," mean he will insist that China start paying its skilled workers $25 an hour and subject their factories to the same payroll taxes, wage-and-hour laws, OSHA inspections and environmental rules as ours?

Beijing will tell him to go fly a kite, Made in China.

It is absurd to think we can force foreign nations to accept U.S. rules and regulations on production and American standards on wages and benefits. And why should foreign nations comply, when – with their present policies and laws – they are looting our industrial base and walking away with our inheritance?

The men who have custody today of what was once the most awesome manufacturing base the world had ever seen are ideologues, impervious to argument or evidence. Like the socialists of Eastern Europe, zealots like Zoellick are beyond retraining. They are uneducable. They have to go. The sooner they do, the sooner we can get about rebuilding the self-sufficient and sovereign America they gave away.

[truthkeeper]

It is in effect. No manufacturing jobs, so the wife works, and the couple together earn what a manufacturing job would have paid and more, for one guy with the wife at home.

Yes...and what are the "intangible" costs to our society as a result?

[Texas_Dawg]

I'm just translating Lennin's statement for you.

People here are doing a little more than translating it. They are agreeing with it.

If hating the "rich" ("evil CEOs", etc.) doesn't apply to you, then don't worry about it. It does to many people at FR though.

[RockyMtnMan]

You still haven't answered this fundamental question;

Where is capital being invested as a result of cost savings/higher returns made from offshoring?

[rightbanker]

If we want to enjoy a higher standard of living than the rest of the world in a environment where (a) global free trade rules and (b) many highly productive workers in the developing world (like China) CAN"T because of various local factors easily turn their own ever increasing productivity into ever increasing wages, then the ONLY answer is that US workers have to be and become VASTLY more productive than workers elsewhere. Otherwise, jobs will indeed inexorably flow from here to elsewhere.

The main problem is that in the process of becoming vastly more productive than the rest of the world, many unproductive workers will be shed. Some of the "discarded" unproductive workers will find jobs in more productive sectors of the economy. But many will not. It's just a simple fact of life. That's the real reason we need a social safety net at all -- not to support those who "won't work" but to make possible an economy that regularly sheds unproductive modes of work, sometimes leaving in its wake vast dislocation. the social safety net needs to ameoliarate that just enough not to include perverse disincentives to labor.

But the bottom line is that unless and until there are a set of global labor standards and laws that serve to translate productivity gains in places like China or India or Mexico (and on and on) into significantly higher wages for workers in those places, work done here at relatively high wages by less productive workers will flow to where it can be done for lower cost and more productively. There's no way to stop this process except by means that will make everybody worse off in the end.

Think of globalization as involving a great sorting out of who gets to do what work at what cost. Eventually, we'll come out alright, but there will be lots and lots of bumps and bruises along the way. The mistake would be to adopt policies (like tarriffs and other trade barriers) that might appear to smooth out the short term bumps and bruises but would be disasterous in the long run. Better to adopt policies that hastens, rather than delays, the shift to more productive work, including, on one side of the coin, policies that encourage capital formation, trade, and the like and, on the other side, policies that encourage labor mobility, re-training, etc.

[hchutch]

The only one who seems incompetent is you.

Unless, that is, you are right and virtually EVERY historian who studied World War II is wrong.

You are not enetitled to create your own facts to support your ideology.

[RockyMtnMan]

It's the bible that says;

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I'll let him do the sorting later and focus on my own "wealth" for now.

[RLK]

If (God forbid) the worst happens and 1992 repeats itself in 2004, the Bush family will be finished in major national politics. I doubt that even the modern Republican party would be stupid enough to travel down the same dead-end road a third time.

-----------------------------

Doubt it. The Republican party has become nothing but a pretentious playground for otherwise useless families such as the Bushs.

[Texas_Dawg]

Where is capital being invested as a result of cost savings/higher returns made from offshoring?

Have you checked the stock market lately? Corporate profits were up 51% last quarter over the year before. If you'd invest in the stock market and quit complaining, you'd be having an amazing year. Then maybe you could start your own business and hire some of your union friends at $50/hr, 4 hours a day, or whatever their going rate is.

[Texas_Dawg]

I'll let him do the sorting later and focus on my own "wealth" for now.

That's exactly why I'm a free market capitalist and not a wealth redistribution socialist.

[ought-six]

The unions are largely to blame for all this. They bled the goose dry. They get greedier and greedier, and their quality of work gets shoddier and shoddier, especially in the construction trades. I've seen it first hand. It is truly alarming.

[truthkeeper]

Your intelligent post at #100 supports why you are one of the most valuable people on this forum, IMHO. In this case, I am in solid agreement with you; however, even when we don't agree you articulate your case very well.

Again, thank you for adding that heartfelt, reasonable argument to this important discussion.

[Texas_Dawg]

We have a $500 (B)illiion dollar trade deficit. Hello! Is this a problem or isn't it?

No. It's not a problem.

[Euro-American Scum]

At a rally in Ohio, which has lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs since mid-2000, President Bush railed: "We've lost thousands of manufacturing jobs because production moved overseas. ... America must send a message overseas – say, look, we expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to trade."

More tap dancing on the desks of the voting public. Bush is a globalist. Offshoring will back off a bit until after Bush is safely re-elected, then will pick up full steam until the only jobs available are those sweeping the basement floors of Enron on the graveyard shift. And those jobs will be filled by H1-Bs or illegals.

[RockyMtnMan]

I invest in the stock market.

How much higher would my returns be if the trillion or so dollars invested overseas had been invested domestically? Stocks rise in value based on quarterly returns and future revenue projections. Monies raised are then reinvested to grow the business, it is this cycle that in the past has created more consumers and increased buying power. At what point do you stop sacrificing one to improve the other?

[ex-snook]

"The unions are largely to blame for all this"

Give it a rest. Many union workers are now Government employees. Bush just uses them for photo-ops with firemen and mine workers.

[Gargantua]

Arguing the economics of this thread ignores the more vital issue at hand, which is National Security, not economics.

[Tokhtamish]

I have been following this with tremendous interest. Something like this, if home sized units could be built, would do for the Northeast and Midwest what air conditioning did for the Sunbelt.

[Texas_Dawg]

How much higher would my returns be if the trillion or so dollars invested overseas had been invested domestically?

Do you really think that by banninf companies from doing business overseas, you force them to do it here? Companies can always shut down instead of doing business here. You think this cyclical economic downturn was bad? If you could have only seen how bad it would have been if companies didn't have a cheaper option to keep them afloat.

[Lazamataz]

China_Dawg, do you realize you have never said one substantial thing on any of these threads? Just insults and slurs.

I'm actually glad you don't say anything substantial: You are turning people off to Unfair "Free" Trade by the dozens.

Carry on.

[hchutch]

It gets worse - they often will hold up efforts to build productivity. Remember how the longshoremen went on strike to break up an effort to increase automation in tracking shipments last year?

It is becoming quite obvious to me that Buchanan and those who parrot his line have far more in common with the Dems than they would like to admit. They favor redistribution of wealth, and are more than willing to enagge in class warfare. There is also a lack of tolerance for those who dare to disagree with them. There is also an acceptance of government intervention to achieve their desired results.

Quite frankly, I don't like either the Buchananites or the Dems.