Posted on 09/17/2003 7:06:29 AM PDT by 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.
Yes, I am on-board with Buchanan. As long as his detractors have no answer to his statements except to compare him to the assholes on the Left, or assert their usual ad hominems, I'll stand by his assertions.
Now let's hear your solutions to America's problems; I'll see who I can compare your ideas to.
Pat's phrase sounded to me like a dig at anyone who believes they were "educated" at Harvard.
You can call me stupid, you can call me ugly, fat, thin, tall, short, but don't call me a supporter of the Holocaust.
I told him that I was hurt by the accusation, so of course he continually repeated it. Showed me something about his character. If anybody here genuinely believes that he is full time wheeler dealer on wall street who just happens to post all day, please stand up and be counted. (no, he can't vote for himself).
(PS: I am continually stunned every time I successfully understand anything in Russian).
If the company flourishes under the guidance of a CEO he deserves whatever he can get. The problem is that at present, CEO's rake it in even if they are total failures that destroy companies.
The money given to those folks does far more damage than the money given to the workers at the same company.
Whatever happened to merit pay?
It makes you a creep.
An uneducated, Chinese child who (because China uses child labor) is a PR person for an outsourcing firm, in between your posts as a Democrat Underground member.
Absolutely. To me too.
That's what made me do something so stupid as to critique grammar! ;-)
All of a sudden, an opportunity for very wonderful new equipment comes in. It will cost a ton to upgrade, but over the long haul it will make the company grow leaps and bounds. What is the CEO to do? Does he spend all the money on the outlay, or does he hold onto money as profit for a few quarters, giving himself a huge bonus because of "performance". Even in this case, the company is doing "super" but not really, when ya look 5 years down the road.
A good incentive plan would be to pay the CEO's well. Expect performance, question their actions and have them justify their decisions, and put the stock options out for them to only be excercised say 3-5 years after they leave the company. I feel terrible for a CEO now who does the right thing, invests in new techs, and gets a lower bonus, while their successor sits on their hands, skips R&D, and lives off the fruit of their predecessor. Most huge companies have many fundamentals in place that really are out of the hands of a 3-5 year shelf life CEO. It's 5 years later often when the fruits of their actions will be known. They will feel responsible in long term growth, grooming a capable successor, and will benefit the company and economy.
Then you and Willie and ex-snook and many, many others at FR should be very happy.
Warren Buffett is a huge trade protectionist and pro-tax Democrat as well. Limousine liberals. They do it because they "care", you know.
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.