Pat Buchanan : America's Hollow Prosperity

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 02/15/2006 | Patrick Buchanan

[SirLinksalot]

Our hollow prosperity

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

Posted: February 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern

PATRICK BUCHANAN

© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.

Now that the U.S. trade deficit for 2005 has come in at $726 billion, the fourth straight all-time record, a question arises.

What constitutes failure for a free-trade policy? Or is there no such thing? Is free trade simply right no matter the results?

Last year, the United States ran a $202 billion trade deficit with China, the largest ever between two nations. We ran all-time record trade deficits with OPEC, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Latin America. The $50 billion deficit with Mexico was the largest since NAFTA passed and also the largest in history.

When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration.

None of this happened. Indeed, the opposite occurred. Mexico's standard of living is lower than it was in 1993, the U.S. trade surplus has vanished, and America is being invaded. Mexico is now the primary source of narcotics entering the United States.

Again, when can we say a free-trade policy has failed?

The Bushites point proudly to 4.6 million jobs created since May 2003, a 4.7 percent unemployment rate and low inflation.

Unfortunately, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts and analysts Charles McMillion and Ed Rubenstein have taken a close look at the figures and discovered that the foundation of the Bush prosperity rests on rotten timber.

The entire job increase since 2001 has been in the service sector – credit intermediation, health care, social assistance, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc. – and state and local government.

But, from January 2001 to January 2006, the United States lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of all we had. Over the past five years, we have suffered a net loss in goods-producing jobs.

"The decline in some manufacturing sectors has more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing than with a super-economy that is 'the envy of the world,'" writes Roberts.

Communications equipment lost 43 percent of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37 percent ... The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30 percent. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25 percent of its workforce.

How did this happen? Imports. The U.S. trade deficit in advanced technology jobs in 2005 hit an all-time high.

As for the "knowledge industry" jobs that were going to replace blue-collar jobs, it's not happening. The information sector lost 17 percent of all its jobs over the last five years.

In the same half-decade, the U.S. economy created only 70,000 net new jobs in architecture and engineering, while hundreds of thousands of American engineers remain unemployed.

If we go back to when Clinton left office, one finds that, in five years, the United States has created a net of only 1,054,000 private-sector jobs, while government added 1.1 million. But as many new private sector jobs are not full-time, McMillion reports, "the country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001."

This is an economic triumph?

Had the United States not created the 1.4 million new jobs it did in health care since January 2001, we would have nearly half a million fewer private-sector jobs than when Bush first took the oath.

Ed Rubenstein of ESR Research Economic Consultants looks at the wage and employment figures and discovers why, though the Bushites were touting historic progress, 55 percent of the American people in a January poll rated the Bush economy only "fair" or "poor."

Not only was 2005's growth of 2 million jobs a gain of only 1.5 percent, anemic compared to the average 3.5 percent at this stage of other recoveries, the big jobs gains are going to immigrants.

Non-Hispanic whites, over 70 percent of the labor force, saw only a 1 percent employment increase in 2005. Hispanics, half of whom are foreign born, saw a 4.7 percent increase. As Hispanics will work for less in hospitals and hospices, and as waiters and waitresses, they are getting the new jobs.

But are not wages rising? Nope. When inflation is factored in, the Economic Policy Institute reports, "real wages fell by 0.5 percent over the last 12 months after falling 0.7 percent the previous 12 months."

If one looks at labor force participation – what share of the 227 million potential workers in America have jobs – it has fallen since 2002 for whites, blacks and Hispanics alike. Non-Hispanic whites are down to 63.4 percent, but black Americans have fallen to 57.7 percent.

What is going on? Hispanic immigrants are crowding out black Americans in the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled job market. And millions of our better jobs are being lost to imports and outsourcing.

The affluent free-traders, whose wealth resides in stocks in global companies, are enriching themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens and sacrificing the American worker on the altar of the Global Economy.

None dare call it economic treason.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, you can dream on all you like. Hope you enjoy it.

I live well. I'm not union and have never advocated unions or higher wages. So much for that childish dribble. Try not to get any on you.

[DoughtyOne]

Todd, evidently you're not old enough to realize that data can be manipulated. I am.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, evidently you're not old enough to realize that data can be manipulated.

Wow, that's deep. All I'm waiting for is some non-manipulated data from you.

Waiting........waiting.......waiting........

[expat_panama]

Thanks for the discussion..

These guys have really got their hearts set on watching America collapse; I mean, the way any evidence of American strength is immediately discarded.   

     Average wealth is up--  not good enough as long as there's at least one poor person in the US.

     Employment is up--  not good enough as long as there's at least one job that someone doesn't like.

     Exports are up--  no good as long as there's at least one thing the Chinese buy that they might be happy with.

Ain't it great how so many of our friends at the DU are able to participate here without getting zotted-- sure would be boring without them!

[DoughtyOne]

Todd, the only data I can give you is that we had upwards of 60 people at "one" location. "60" You in your enlightended state refuse to admit this throws your stats in serious disarray.

Like I said earlier Todd, you'll welcome to call me a liar. You're welcome to dismiss this. Hey bud, live on in dilusion. It's all the same to me.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, the only data I can give you is that we had upwards of 60 people at "one" location. "60" You in your enlightended state refuse to admit this throws your stats in serious disarray.

I haven't refused to admit anything. The only thing I refuse to do is accept your story with no backup. Find a link that shows 2 million Americans are in these retraining programs and I will gladly admit that there are 2 million. Then you can add the 2 million to the unemployment number and say "Aha!! Unemployment is really 6%, or 7%, or 8%" Just get a source. Tired of listening to worrywarts and their anecdotes.

[Toddsterpatriot]

These guys have really got their hearts set on watching America collapse; I mean, the way any evidence of American strength is immediately discarded.

You see that story about conservatives being happier than liberals? All the proof you need is to listen to the protectionists.

[DoughtyOne]

Todd, there are national security interests involved in this. If you're not aware of that, just consider Loral's donation to the Chinese government. Your post was just silly.

[DoughtyOne]

I don't know where to find those stats Todd. Perhaps you can since you live and die by them. Like I said, just ignore them. Later...

[Sam Gamgee]

Buchanan needs to go back and learn the basics from Adam Smith. The Europeans tried mercantalism. It failed. Why? Well, it's fairly simple. The US can retreat and try the protectionist path if it wants. Do you really think other nations will sit by and allow that? They will retaliate by imposing tariffs against US exports. So the US manages to decrease imports only to lose exports as well. You don't fix trade imbalances protectionism.

[Sam Gamgee]

I was reading an old book by Rush Limbaugh called "How Things Ought To Be", written in the early 90s. He dedicates a small section to Pat Buchanan and really saw Pat as a saviour to conservatism. I wonder if Rush has changed his mind about Pat since? One also wonders if there is something in Pat's personal life to turn him against the Jews? Chomsky, another, anti-Israelite, was part of a pro-Israel youth group - so obviously something happened there to turn him off. Did a Rabbi steal Pat's taxi one day between 1992 and today?

[nopardons]

When Pat was growing up, he and his family were BIG Father Coughlin fans ( he was an antisemite and pro-Hiltler/Nazi Germany radio firebrand ) and the Catholic church of Pat's youth, was pretty anti-Jew, in general.

He may not have ever talked about it all that much, in earlier times, but it WAS Pat, who talked Reagan into laying wreath in a NAZI cemetery.

[expat_panama]

That makes a lot of sense and ties up a lot of loose ends. Thanks.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Toddster, when someone else makes a remark about personal ancendontal evidence helping to prove their point you rip them saying their point is based on emotions/feeling and you further rip them because they did not show a chart or graph.

Did the poster give a source that proved manufacturing jobs pay more than service jobs? Or were they using their personal anecdotal experience?

[Toddsterpatriot]

No they did not show a graph and that's my point. Neither do you.

Excellent! When no one has a source, my anecdote is just as good as yours.

You've made the comment on numerous times that your manufacturing job never paid as much as your service job

Only in response to anecdotes that all manufacturing jobs pay more than all service jobs.

Speaking of anecdotes, ever find any proof that more than 50% of WalMart's non-food, non-chemical products are from China?

[Toddsterpatriot]

There was a sucking sound and it would have been way worse if china did not step in the picture in the late 90's and siphon off jobs that would have went to mexico. They went to china instead because of even cheaper labor.

And despite the sucking sound, manufacturing jobs were still 300,000 higher in December 2000 than they were in December 1993.

You say they revauled the peso( your reasonng why the imports exports went up so much) What year was that?

One of the reasons, yes. According to the chart, the Peso lost 1/3 of it's value between December 19,1994 and December 30, 1994. By March 1995, it had lost 50% of its value. It bounced around, they repegged it until October and then it sank again.

So, besides NAFTA, their currency debacle made our exports up to twice as expensive and their exports half as expensive. I'm just guessing, but I think that might impact the balance of trade.

FXHistory: historical currency exchange rates

Conversion Table: USD to MXN (Interbank rate)

   Time period: 12/19/94 to 10/17/95.
Daily averages:

12/19/1994	3.46620
12/20/1994	3.940
12/21/1994	3.9960
12/22/1994	3.9960
12/23/1994	3.9960
12/24/1994	3.9960
12/25/1994	3.9960
12/26/1994	5.1510
12/27/1994	5.350
12/28/1994	5.180
12/29/1994	4.90
12/30/1994	5.20
12/31/1994	5.20
01/01/1995	5.20
01/02/1995	5.20
01/03/1995	5.41050
01/04/1995	5.5510
01/05/1995	5.40
01/06/1995	5.60
01/07/1995	5.60
01/08/1995	5.60
01/09/1995	5.60
01/10/1995	5.740
01/11/1995	5.750
01/12/1995	5.670
01/13/1995	5.330
01/14/1995	5.330
01/15/1995	5.330
01/16/1995	5.490
01/17/1995	5.380
01/18/1995	5.3250
01/19/1995	5.5510
01/20/1995	5.70
01/21/1995	5.70
01/22/1995	5.70
01/23/1995	5.750
01/24/1995	5.80
01/25/1995	5.7210
01/26/1995	5.670
01/27/1995	5.710
01/28/1995	5.710
01/29/1995	5.710
01/30/1995	6.260
01/31/1995	6.10
02/01/1995	5.460
02/02/1995	5.4710
02/03/1995	5.4110
02/04/1995	5.4110
02/05/1995	5.4110
02/06/1995	5.360
02/07/1995	5.360
02/08/1995	5.380
02/09/1995	5.580
02/10/1995	5.630
02/11/1995	5.630
02/12/1995	5.630
02/13/1995	5.6110
02/14/1995	5.780
02/15/1995	6.0
02/16/1995	6.110
02/17/1995	5.830
02/18/1995	5.830
02/19/1995	5.830
02/20/1995	5.56050
02/21/1995	5.460
02/22/1995	5.860
02/23/1995	5.680
02/24/1995	5.80
02/25/1995	5.80
02/26/1995	5.80
02/27/1995	6.050
02/28/1995	5.980
03/01/1995	5.960
03/02/1995	5.970
03/03/1995	6.1450
03/04/1995	6.1450
03/05/1995	6.1450
03/06/1995	6.60
03/07/1995	6.770
03/08/1995	6.850
03/09/1995	7.60
03/10/1995	6.450
03/11/1995	6.450
03/12/1995	6.450
03/13/1995	6.45250
03/14/1995	6.60
03/15/1995	6.660
03/16/1995	7.20
03/17/1995	7.220
03/18/1995	7.220
03/19/1995	7.220
03/20/1995	6.9850
03/21/1995	6.9850
03/22/1995	7.2350
03/23/1995	6.950
03/24/1995	6.860
03/25/1995	6.860
03/26/1995	6.860
03/27/1995	6.770
03/28/1995	6.830
03/29/1995	6.810

03/30/1995	6.760
03/31/1995	6.810
04/01/1995	6.810
04/02/1995	6.810
04/03/1995	6.80
04/04/1995	6.60
04/05/1995	6.480
04/06/1995	6.390
04/07/1995	6.330
04/08/1995	6.330
04/09/1995	6.330
04/10/1995	6.330
04/11/1995	6.290
04/12/1995	6.270
04/13/1995	6.270
04/14/1995	6.270
04/15/1995	6.270
04/16/1995	6.270
04/17/1995	6.270
04/18/1995	6.240
04/19/1995	6.130
04/20/1995	6.060
04/21/1995	6.040
04/22/1995	6.040
04/23/1995	6.040
04/24/1995	5.890
04/25/1995	5.910
04/26/1995	5.820
04/27/1995	5.950
04/28/1995	6.020
04/29/1995	6.020
04/30/1995	6.020
05/01/1995	6.020
05/02/1995	5.920
05/03/1995	5.920
05/04/1995	5.860
05/05/1995	5.860
05/06/1995	5.860
05/07/1995	5.860
05/08/1995	5.860
05/09/1995	5.860
05/10/1995	5.860
05/11/1995	5.860
05/12/1995	5.860
05/13/1995	5.860
05/14/1995	5.860
05/15/1995	5.860
05/16/1995	5.860
05/17/1995	5.860
05/18/1995	5.860
05/19/1995	5.860
05/20/1995	5.860
05/21/1995	5.860
05/22/1995	5.860
05/23/1995	5.860
05/24/1995	5.860
05/25/1995	5.860
05/26/1995	5.860
05/27/1995	5.860
05/28/1995	5.860
05/29/1995	5.860
05/30/1995	5.860
05/31/1995	5.860
06/01/1995	5.860
06/02/1995	5.860
06/03/1995	5.860
06/04/1995	5.860
06/05/1995	5.860
06/06/1995	5.860
06/07/1995	5.860
06/08/1995	5.860
06/09/1995	5.860
06/10/1995	5.860
06/11/1995	5.860
06/12/1995	5.860
06/13/1995	5.860
06/14/1995	5.860
06/15/1995	5.860
06/16/1995	5.860
06/17/1995	5.860
06/18/1995	5.860
06/19/1995	5.860
06/20/1995	5.860
06/21/1995	5.860
06/22/1995	5.860
06/23/1995	5.860
06/24/1995	5.860
06/25/1995	5.860
06/26/1995	5.860
06/27/1995	5.860
06/28/1995	5.860
06/29/1995	5.860
06/30/1995	5.860
07/01/1995	5.860
07/02/1995	5.860
07/03/1995	5.860
07/04/1995	5.860
07/05/1995	5.860
07/06/1995	5.860
07/07/1995	5.860
07/08/1995	5.860

07/09/1995	5.860
07/10/1995	5.860
07/11/1995	5.860
07/12/1995	5.860
07/13/1995	5.860
07/14/1995	5.860
07/15/1995	5.860
07/16/1995	5.860
07/17/1995	5.860
07/18/1995	5.860
07/19/1995	5.860
07/20/1995	5.860
07/21/1995	5.860
07/22/1995	5.860
07/23/1995	5.860
07/24/1995	5.860
07/25/1995	5.860
07/26/1995	5.860
07/27/1995	5.860
07/28/1995	5.860
07/29/1995	5.860
07/30/1995	5.860
07/31/1995	5.860
08/01/1995	5.860
08/02/1995	5.860
08/03/1995	5.860
08/04/1995	5.860
08/05/1995	5.860
08/06/1995	5.860
08/07/1995	5.860
08/08/1995	5.860
08/09/1995	5.860
08/10/1995	5.860
08/11/1995	5.860
08/12/1995	5.860
08/13/1995	5.860
08/14/1995	5.860
08/15/1995	5.860
08/16/1995	5.860
08/17/1995	5.860
08/18/1995	5.860
08/19/1995	5.860
08/20/1995	5.860
08/21/1995	5.860
08/22/1995	5.860
08/23/1995	5.860
08/24/1995	5.860
08/25/1995	5.860
08/26/1995	5.860
08/27/1995	5.860
08/28/1995	5.860
08/29/1995	5.860
08/30/1995	5.860
08/31/1995	5.860
09/01/1995	5.860
09/02/1995	5.860
09/03/1995	5.860
09/04/1995	5.860
09/05/1995	5.860
09/06/1995	5.860
09/07/1995	5.860
09/08/1995	5.860
09/09/1995	5.860
09/10/1995	5.860
09/11/1995	5.860
09/12/1995	5.860
09/13/1995	5.860
09/14/1995	5.860
09/15/1995	5.860
09/16/1995	5.860
09/17/1995	5.860
09/18/1995	5.860
09/19/1995	5.860
09/20/1995	5.860
09/21/1995	5.860
09/22/1995	5.860
09/23/1995	5.860
09/24/1995	5.860
09/25/1995	5.860
09/26/1995	5.860
09/27/1995	5.860
09/28/1995	5.860
09/29/1995	5.860
09/30/1995	5.860
10/01/1995	5.860
10/02/1995	5.860
10/03/1995	5.860
10/04/1995	5.860
10/05/1995	5.860
10/06/1995	5.860
10/07/1995	5.860
10/08/1995	5.860
10/09/1995	5.860
10/10/1995	5.860
10/11/1995	5.860
10/12/1995	5.860
10/13/1995	5.860
10/14/1995	5.860
10/15/1995	5.860
10/16/1995	6.7450
10/17/1995	6.7450

We should hire the mexicans to show US how they was able to increase their imports so much.

If you meant to say we should hire the Mexicans to show us how to increase exports, don't bother. If you cut your currency in half, and destroy your citizens ability to buy things, you can also grow your exports much faster than your imports. Just think, we'd only have to pay $5 a gallon for gas. And you'd get a smaller trade deficit. Maybe even a surplus. And that's the important thing, right? Because deficits are always bad and a surplus is always good, right?

[nopardons]

You're welcome.

Facts really DO matter; sadly the dregs of Pat's sycophants, here, don't know any.