Posted on 03/28/2007 8:28:48 AM PDT by saganite
Saudi King Abdullah, whose country is a close US ally, on Wednesday slammed the "illegitimate foreign occupation" of Iraq in an opening speech to the annual Arab summit in Riyadh.
"In beloved Iraq, blood is being shed among brothers in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," Abdullah said.
He also said that Arab nations, which are planning to revive a five-year-old Middle East peace plan at the summit, would not allow any foreign force to decide the future of the region.
In the past, Saudi leaders including Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal have often criticised US policy in Iraq but have never described its presence there as "illegitimate."
If Arab leaders recover trust in each other and regain their credibility, "the winds of hope will blow on the nation, and then, we will not allow forces from outside the region to determine the future of the region, and only the flag of Arabism will be raised on Arab soil," Abdullah said.
Arab foreign ministers meeting ahead of the summit agreed on Monday to call for an amendment of Iraq's 2005 constitution to give Sunni Arabs a greater share of power in the war-ravaged country and prevent its breakup.
But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari responded by saying the government did not need a "diktat" from the Arabs on how to amend its constitution and boost national reconciliation.
The Iraqi government has initiated moves to review a de-Baathification law in a bid to woo former members of the regime of executed dictator Saddam Hussein back into politics and government jobs.
Under a controversial de-Baathification law, tens of thousands of members of Iraq's former ruling Baath party were stripped of their posts in government, at universities and in business after the 2003 US-led invasion.
The law has been a major source of grievance for the minority Sunnis, who have waged a deadly insurgency against US troops and the Shiite-led American-backed government in Baghdad.
Iraq's once-ruling Sunnis also want an amendment of the constitution, which they fear leaves their central regions without natural resources and Iraq's oil wealth in the hands of the governing Shiites and the autonomous Kurds.
An old canard and myth put out by people who are not economists or schooled in either economics or the actual ways of international currency and finance; thus they string disparate "facts" and impute meaning to them that correlates only because the authors draw their own misguided connections to them.
For instance: "In addition, prior to and during WWII, due to extreme political and economic upheaval, a considerable amount of gold from European countries was transferred to the U.S."
The reason was: The Europeans borrowed from United States banks to finance World War I and its aftermath, and then again to finance WWII. As a consequence, by the 1940s, Europe owed the United States far more than the United States total foreign debt. Given the weakness of European finances at the time, and with gold as the basis of monetary value (fixed rates backed by gold and/or silver) payments of Europe's war debts were made in gold.
"Thus, after WWII the U.S. had accumulated 80 percent of the world’s gold and 40 percent of the world’s production. At the founding of the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1944-45, U.S. predominance was absolute. A fixed exchange currency was established based on gold, the gold-dollar standard, wherein the value of the dollar was pegged to the price of gold—U.S. $35 per ounce of gold. Because gold was combined with U.S. bank notes, the dollar note and gold became equivalent, which then became the international reserve currency."
That was simply ignorance, myth and poppycock. The United States went on the Gold Standard in 1873 and the United States dollar replaced the British Pound as the "reserve" currency for international exchange in 1919, long before the World Bank and the IMF.
Initially, the U.S. had $30 billion in gold reserves. But the United States spent more than $500 billion on the Vietnam War alone, from 1967-1972. During these years, the U.S. had over 110 military bases across the globe, each costing hundreds of millions of dollars a year. These expenses were paid in paper dollars and the total number given out far exceeded the gold reserve of the U.S treasury. By then (1971-72), the U.S. Treasury was running out of gold and had only $10 billion in gold left. On August 17, 1971, Nixon suspended the U.S. dollar conversion into gold. Thus, the dollar was “floated” in the international monetary market.
More ignorance with conflating of unrelated facts.
By the beginning of the 1960s [b4 Vietnam], the $US 35 = 1 oz. Gold ratio was becoming more and more difficult to sustain. World gold demand was rising as economies across the world recovered and often used precious metals as the actual reserve behind their currency (like the US did). U.S. Gold reserves were falling (actually began in late 1950s) due to the ever increasing trade deficits which the U.S. continued to run with the rest of the world [post WWII spending boom and US demand far exceeded US supply, generating massive imports and huge trade deficits]. Shortly after President Kennedy was Inaugurated in January 1961, and to combat this situation [b4 Vietnam], newly-appointed Undersecretary of the Treasury Robert Roosa suggested that the U.S. and Europe pool their Gold resources to prevent the private market price of Gold from exceeding the mandated rate of $US 35 per ounce. Acting on this suggestion, the Central Banks of the U.S., Britain, West Germany, France, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg set up the "London Gold Pool" in early 1961 [b4 Vietnam].
The Pool came unstuck when the French, under Charles de Gaulle, reneged on the agreement in 1963 and began to send back the Dollars earned by exporting to the U.S. [exports that helped rebuild France] and demanding Gold rather than Treasury debt paper in return. Under the terms of the Bretton Woods Agreement signed in 1944, France was legally entitled to do this [only until then its own debts to the US had previously exceeded its trade surplus]. The drain on U.S. Gold became acute, and the London Gold Pool folded in March 1968. But the world demand for Gold did not abate and its price appreciation together with the trade deficit ecsaserbated the stated value link of Gold to the dollar.
By the end of the 1960s, the U.S. faced the stark choice of eliminating their trade deficits or revaluing the Dollar downwards against Gold to reflect the actual trade situation. President Nixon decided to do neither. Instead, he repudiated the international obligation of the U.S. to redeem its Dollar in Gold just as President Roosevelt had repudiated the domestic obligation in 1933. On August 15, 1971, Mr Nixon closed the "Gold Window". The last link between Gold and the Dollar was gone. The result was inevitable. In February 1973, the world's currencies "floated". By the end of 1974, Gold had soared from $35 to $195 an ounce but world currencies remained stable.
Total U.S. government debt at its worst 1960s year [1968,Vietnam era] was no more than 3% of GDP [a historically not consequential figure], in an economy that was the largest in the world. The U.S. did not have a problem funding the war in Vietnam and the war's expenses were unrelated to the international financial agreements and trade issues that took the U.S. off the gold standard.
"The U.S. sought to protect its dollar strength and hegemony by ensuring that Saudi Arabia price its oil only in dollars. To achieve this, the U.S. made a deal, some say a secret one, that it would protect the Saudi regime in exchange for their selling oil only in dollars."
Fantasies of the left. There never was such an agreement and the US economy would actually improve if demand on the Euro was greatly increased. In fact the high Euro value now is one of the factors contributing to sluggish growth with economies most closely associated with the Euro. The higher Euro value hurts European exports and helps US exports. If that were to become an even greater element, US exports would soar. That is not a disadvantage to the US, but the myth of it continues, unabated.
"Oil can be bought from OPEC only if you have dollars. Non-oil producing countries, such as most underdeveloped countries and Japan, first have to sell their goods to earn dollars with which they can purchase oil. If they cannot earn enough dollars, then they have to borrow dollars from the WB/IMF, which have to be paid back, with interest, in dollars.
Stuff and economic nonsense. No wonder people are so ignorant. OPEC oil is PRICED in dollars. That is the OPEC stated price, stated as a dollar value per barrel. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS SOLD ONLY FOR DOLLARS. The dollar is chosen because of its value stability. In the 1970s, Opec tried a price setting standard based on a basket of currencies known as Geneva I and later Geneva II. The instability of the underlying currencies resulted in traders often using the dollar equivalent of the Geneva I or II on the date of the trade. The trades for oil supplies are made through international financial trading outfits. When a "buy" order comes in for Saudi oil, the price is stated in dollars and the buyer must supply the equivalent in dollars OR IN THEIR currency, which is checked by the trading house conducting the trade for the Saudis, to be sure the actual dollar equivalent is provided. The dollar is used by Opec for its price stability, not to help create a demand for dollars. The writers would have you believe that the dollar demand is artificial (secret illuminati agreement between the US trilateralists and the Saudis) and therefore so is its value. But they have it backwards. The demand is on the result side of the equation and its stable value is on the cause side.
"For instance, in 2003 the current U.S. account deficit and external debt has been running at more than $500 billion. Put in simple terms, the U.S. will receive $500 billion more in goods and services from other countries than it will provide them. The imported goods are paid by printing dollar bills, i.e., “fiat” dollars."
More economic ignorance. The international trade of the U.S. is always in balance. Popular consumer reports in the news always speak of one-half of the trade equation - exports and imports of goods and services. What is not presented often enough is the "capital" accounts. The US "trade" deficit exists only because the US has a capital surplus. More companies from all over the world put so much brand new capital into the US that it far exceeds our capital outflow. The US "capital" accounts completely offset the export/import account. We can buy so many imports because we have so much foreign capital that comes here to invest in the United States private economy. Others export their capital to us, investing it here, and we turn around and buy their exports. There is no actual imbalance when the whole financial picture is understood.
"Thus, the U.S. effectively controls the world oil-market as the dollar has become the “fiat” international trading currency.
Thus the authors, ignorant of world finance deliver more mythmaking.
" If OPEC oil could be sold in other currencies, e.g. the euro, then U.S. economic dominance—dollar imperialism or hegemony—would be seriously challenged. More and more oil importing countries would acquire the euro as their “reserve,” its value would increase, and a larger amount of trade would be transacted and denominated in euros. In such circumstances, the value of the dollar would most likely go down, some speculate between 20-40" percent.
As already noted above; the authors are not economists and do not knw what they are talking about. You increase the Euro and you decrease European exports and increase American exports. It has already been happening, which is in part why so many Euro linked economies continue to lag the US.
All else in the authors rant is just more stuff and nonsense. Not worth the web space its taking up.
You seem to be full of misguided conspiracy theories. Judging by your choice of sources, we can't be surprised.
You have more ignorance than a monkey can shake a stick at. I truly believe you are a troll here.
"I think they are possibly doing as they did after 9/11 when they asked us to leave and we found ourselves unable to patrol the no fly zone from Saudi airfields- and even more bizarre, betrothen to protect the royal family but not have our forces on KSA soil doing it."
They did not ask us to leave after 9/11. We continued to use Saudi airfields before the Afghan invasion, during the Afghan invasion and after the Afghan invasion. It was not until after the invasion of Iraq that we quit using Saudi airfields.
"Every President since before Carter had to be cozy with them, they were the catalyst which broke the soviet's back financially by flooding the market of world petroleum supplies."
Rubbish to the nth degree. While oil prices declined in the mid-to-late seventies, it had nothing to do with any agreement between Carter and the Saudis. World supply, via the Soviets (far east), British (North Sea), Mexico, Venezuala, US in the Gulf of Mexico and others had (in response to the Opec cartel) created new supply faster than demand. The world economy was not expanding fast enough. The Saudis kept their contribution to the supply at levels more commensurate to the late 1960s, in spite of all the new suppliers. Why? Because even though it depressed prices for all oil sellers (US oil companies as well, not just the Soviets), the Saudi huge portion of the world supply meant that it still made more than enough revenue, because Saudi light crude has one of the cheapest extraction costs. Carter had nothing to do with it. It was simple, typical Saudi greed.
While this hurt the Soviets economically, for a little while, the inability to compete with the Reagan military buildup later, in the 1980s is what finally bankrupted them. No thanks to Carter who had been lowering our military profile.
"We LOST the Propoganda War over Iraq, and millions will end up dead because of it..."
Thank you msm. And they still won't understand what appeasement always causes.
"It was not until after the invasion of Iraq that we quit using Saudi airfields."
Bullsh*t. We were out of our main air force facility long before OIF. The Saudis did in fact request we leave.
"Rubbish to the nth degree. While oil prices declined in the mid-to-late seventies, it had nothing to do with any agreement between Carter and the Saudis. "
I never said it did, did I? Are you denying that the Carter library was built partially with a huge endowment by the Royal family?
The price manipulation happened during the Reagan years.
"While this hurt the Soviets economically, for a little while, the inability to compete with the Reagan military buildup later, in the 1980s is what finally bankrupted them."
WELL NO SHER SH*TLOCK. The price of one of their leading export commodities plummeting didn't help much, eh?
Whikle your reply appeared a rebuttal, a closer look only reveals that each of your points merely support what you tried to deny- except for this one:
"More economic ignorance. The international trade of the U.S. is always in balance. Popular consumer reports in the news always speak of one-half of the trade equation - exports and imports of goods and services. What is not presented often enough is the "capital" accounts. The US "trade" deficit exists only because the US has a capital surplus. More companies from all over the world put so much brand new capital into the US that it far exceeds our capital outflow. The US "capital" accounts completely offset the export/import account. We can buy so many imports because we have so much foreign capital that comes here to invest in the United States private economy. Others export their capital to us, investing it here, and we turn around and buy their exports. There is no actual imbalance when the whole financial picture is understood."
That's TOO funny, pal. What country owns the title on YOUR soul? Such a scenario would quickly have the entire country under foreign ownership- not entirely untrue, but to say it has countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability which Clinton nailed the coffin shut with his Chinagate and NAFTA policies is just silly.
What you are saying is that we are countering the consumer driven trade deficit by selling shares of America to the world- again I will concurr there is a truth to that- but you would promote that is a sustainable economic model?
"Fantasies of the left. There never was such an agreement and the US economy would actually improve if demand on the Euro was greatly increased"
I'll ask you this: Are you denying that after Desert Storm the Saudis discounted exports to the US by one dollar barrel to continue this protection you deny?
Furthermore your assertion about the Euro is silly, it would demand that the entire world economy was only comprised of the Dollar and the Euro, and that the EU needed something from us they could not get elsewhere.
The world is chomping at the bit to divest the US dollar, wake up and smell the disrespect and lack of gratitude for us saving the free world.
"That's TOO funny, pal. What country owns the title on YOUR soul? Such a scenario would quickly have the entire country under foreign ownership- not entirely untrue, but to say it has countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability which Clinton nailed the coffin shut with his Chinagate and NAFTA policies is just silly."
No my dear troll. it only shows your ignorance of international economics. Nearly every Secretary of the Treasury since Carter's has tried to explain the relationship of the capital account (US capital sent to invest overseas, foreign capital invested in the US)to the "current account" (import/export trade in good and services), usually, most people, like you, are not listening when they do.
The real "trade" balance sheet has two accounts: the current account (that's the one the media likes to talk about because of it's "deficit", consisting of imports and exports of goods and services exchanges, and the capital account, consisting of investments (direct capital flow unrelated to import/export). As such, the real "trade" balance sheet is always balanced. We have a large trade "deficit" because we can afford it, because we have a surplus on the capital side.
"Such a scenario would quickly have the entire country under foreign ownership- not entirely untrue, but to say it has countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability which Clinton nailed the coffin shut with his Chinagate and NAFTA policies is just silly."
First, it is you that say something has "countered the entire decimation of our manufacturing capability", not I, because the issues - international finance and how it works, and "manufacturing" as a slice of our economy are somewhat apples and oranges - related, in some ways but unrelated to the general understanding of a "trade deficit" and what it actually means, in terms of finance.
Second: "Chinagate", via Clinton had nothing to do with trade in general, but was related to a particular hi-tech trade that Clinton allowed. The trade issue of permanent "most favored nation" trade status for China trade to the US was not granted until September of 2000. The bill could hardley be called either a Clinton or Dimorat Victory. The bill, H.R. 4444 passed the House with 142 Republicans and 68 Dimorats in favor, and passed the Senate with 40 Republicans, 30 Dimorats in favor. And NAFTA, which was believed would move a lot of US manufacturing to Mexico in fact did not. It did not get major movement of US manufacturers because Mexico proved to be not a great attraction to the foreign investment needed to expand its manufacturing sector (corruption, too much socialist regulation and the power of its crony-capitalist oligarchs).
"I'll ask you this: Are you denying that after Desert Storm the Saudis discounted exports to the US by one dollar barrel to continue this protection you deny?"
Name your source and quote it.
"Furthermore your assertion about the Euro is silly.."
Silly to the ignorant, but not to economists.
Just as a higher value of the dollar hurts our exports, so too a higher value for the Euro hurts its exports. Even when just considering that EU exports count for 36% of the EU GDP (vs 11-13% for the US) and the US alone takes 1/4 of EU exports. Then, considering that most major upward movements of the EU vis-a-vis the dollar have moved the Euro higher against currencies other major trading partners as well. A "higher" value currency is a blessing and a curse. You can buy more from outside the "country" and you sell less to those to whom your currency value has risen.
The world economy is growing. Most major economies and dozens of minor ones have finally matured or started to. While they were all once minor economic players, compared to the US in 1945, they are now much greater contributors. The major change is reflected not so much as a lessening US economy (continues, 20+ years growing better that Europe) but that so many other economies are now also doing very well. It is only natural that the values today would reflect more of an approaching world-parity among major economies than the big divergence of the past.
As far as your myth about "The world is chomping at the bit to divest the US dollar", it would seem the only thing they are chomping at the bit at is to continue to find good export and investment opportunities here, because more capital flows into the U.S. than any other single economy in the world; in spite of the media-painted portrait of things.
"The price manipulation happened during the Reagan years."
Manipulation?? From media I guess you get that.
Here's the history.
Oil prices shot up during the 1973-74 Saudi Oil embargo, from under $10 a barrel to nearly $15 a barrel.
From 1980 to 1986 non-OPEC production increased 10 million barrels per day (efforts to counter the cartel begun in the 1970s started coming on line in the early 198os). OPEC was faced with lower demand and higher supply from outside the organization.
Iran Oil production dropped from 6mil barrels a day in the 1970s to less than 1mil by 1981, while Iraq production dropped from 3.8mil barrels a day in 1979 to less than 500k barrels by 1981. By 1991, Iran was still only producing 3mil a day (50% of its '81 level). Iraq struggled throughout the 80s to regain its old production levels, got close - 3.5mil a day by 1990, but averaged no more than 1/2 that for all the 1980s.
Those production declines, world economic instability of the early 1980s and Middle East instability (Iran/ Iraq war) and increasing non-Opec production brought about a major decline in Opec production through 1985, and a corresponding Opec price increase, peaked briefly at about $38 a barrel in 1981-82, settling around $30 until 1985.
Between 1982 to 1985 OPEC tried to set production quotas low enough to stabilize prices. The attempts repeatedly failed, as various members of OPEC would produce beyond their quotas. During most of this period Saudi Arabia acted as the swing producer, trying to cut its production to stem the free falling prices. In August of 1985, the Saudis got tired of this role. Opec production had already fallen to 50% of its 1975 level. Even with the higher price, 50% less production with a lack of robust demand and greater world supply meant a large net revenue drop for the Saudis. They changed their price setting mechanism and linked their oil prices to the spot market for crude. By early 1986 Saudi production increased from 2 MMBPD to 5 MMBPD and crude oil prices plummeted below $10 per barrel by mid-1986. The Saudis tried to make up in volume what they were losing on price. There were now too many non-Opec players and world demand, the world economy, had not begun to pick up the extra supply. The Saudi move did not work and the lower prices hovered just above and below $20 until the late 1990s (a decade after the fall of the Soviets).
The Soviets were not caught in a Saudi-Reagan manipulated price decline, they were caught with bad timing in a growing global supply of oil meant for today's economy, not the world economy of 1985.
What hurt the needed EXPANSION of Soviet oil exports was not the Opec price decline, but Reagan's work to block the pipeline from Siberia to western Europe. Although Soviet crude was not the quality of Middle East crude, the pipeline would have provided a transportation-cost advantage for central Europe.
It would be easier for me to concede on mere face value your explanations of matters I am not well versed on, if your replies weren't so far off base in other posts where I am. One thing you are wrong about right off is calling me a troll. A troll doesn't stand and defend his position.
Your "balance" still has other nations flowing goods into our shores, and nations flowing capital into our shores for investment. What it does not have is much going back out in exchange is payment for those goods unless you are drawing upon the investment dollars and that is a good old fashioned Ponzi scheme. I'll humbly admit you appear to eclipse my knowledge in financial matters but the math still doesn't add up, and it's not as if the "petrodollars" system is something I pulled out if my ass. Many experts who disagree with it as a cause for war still recognize the underlying theories.
As for Clinton, it's no secret to ANYone but you I guess that during his tenure millions upon millions of manufacturing sector employment positions transferred to the servce sector, for a variety of reasons. NAFTA was a mexican pit stop for factories to actually go to Asia. Chinagate involved manufacturing KNOW HOW as well as machine tools and hi tech computer technology. He did not give them a fish he taught them how to fish! He allowed technology and industrial processes, patents, etc, to be handed to them and here are a couple pieces of evidence:
Patent numbers used to appear on every product. Now they are almost irrelevent.
99 cent stores were almost unheard of before 1992, though we've brought up the Chinese standard of living they're nearly gone. I'm going to guess you probably aren't much younger than my 45 years and you remember when you chose to buy American products. We don't get that choice anymore, America makes nothing.
I would stand on the position that the Clinton years saw, due to his policies above and below the table, the end of US manufacturing capability that may indeed have been decades along already. We are now surely a nation of consumers not producers. (will continue after lunch)
"Your "balance" still has other nations flowing goods into our shores, and nations flowing capital into our shores for investment. What it does not have is much going back out in exchange is payment for those goods unless you are drawing upon the investment dollars and that is a good old fashioned Ponzi scheme."
Its not a Ponzi Scheme; its how international finance works.
When German, British, French, etc. etc. etc. bring their capital (their money, not dollars) here and deposit it for the purpose of making capital investments here, we could just leave it sitting in our banks. Then again, when American corporations take dollars and deposit them overseas, to make capital investments overseas, the nations receiving those dollars could just leave them setting in their banks as well. Banks don't do it that way.
The fact is that the domestic US economy is so large and so many world investors like that fact and like the political and financial security here that they bring more of their money here, to invest, than we send overseas for investments. So much so that we have always have a surplus in that exchange of "capital" - foreigners money versus our money.
Because we have that surplus, we do not have to "inflate" our currency or borrow to finance our imports, we have more than enough in our capital account to offset the vale of imports exceeding the value of exports. Most of the time, we can "pay" for most exports in the "currency" of the exporter. Of course, actual paper does not move in that fashion but the financial record keeping between central banks accomplishes the same thing.
Economists have looked at this and seen that, it is our capital surplus that fuels our higher imports.
If that surplus remained but US imports declined, to the point where the export/import side of the ledger was either "balanced" (on its own) or in surplus as well, then the value of the US currency would rise. It would continue to rise until our exports declined and our imports went up. Unless that is if the inflow of capital remained the same.
If the inflow of capital decreased, and if it deceased a lot, then the dollar would decline for a time, but (a)domestic savings would go up (b)exports would increase (US goods become cheaper) and (c) imports would decrease (imports become more dear), balancing again with the capital side.
Currencies will fluctuate during these major trade and capital adjustments, but after some major change has created the need for such an adjustment, and the means of such an adjustment have been affected (currency value, export/import level and capital flow changes) to put things in balance, then the long-term historic reasons for giving greater value for a currency usually come back to supercede the temporary changes due to trade activity alone.
Either way, the flows of export/import and capital, while often quoted separately, and able to be separately in nominal "deficit" or "surplus", the entire trade balance sheet, which includes them both, is in nominal balance.
"petrodollars" system is something I pulled out if my ass. Many experts who disagree with it as a cause for war still recognize the underlying theories."
I don't know one such "expert" that I would consider an economist.
>>He's speaking to Arabs. They'd likely stone him if he said anything else.<<
Yep, you could have a debate about the initial invasion but the occupation is as legal as they come - fully endorsed by a U.N. mandate and a formal request from the Iraqi government.
The Surge is Working and that scares the Saudis. The last thing they want is a working Democracy.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Troops
My problem is with your attribution of these things, whether completely true in the manner presented or not, as if "Clinton" and his "tenure" are to blame for them, is false.
First: As I pointed, out the trade issue vis-a-vis China always had more Republican support ("free" trade) than support from the Dims.
Second: Most economists do not see China as a "cause" for your complaint about "loss" of "manufacturing" jobs in the U.S.
Why?
Between 1995 and 2000, China itself lost almost 15% of its manufacturing jobs. The difference between productivity and growth is such a powerful cause of job losses, without "Chinese" influence. Roughly half the manufacturing job losses experienced in the US during the last three years was due to rising productivity at home, not export of jobs.
The rise of the service sector is not "at the expense of the manufacturing sector". The reality is that while some workers lose steel jobs and move to McDonald’s, the larger trend is higher-paying service-sector jobs squeezing out lower-paid manufacturing jobs. Even in manufacturing itself, the high-value-input jobs (versus the production plant jobs) remain, mostly, US domestic jobs, and some foreign manufacturers are even transferring some of those high-end jobs here (most Japanese car makers now have primary design facilities in California).
In spite of so called "job losses", the reality is that U.S. manufacturing production and the dollar value of that production has grown decade after decade. Imports from China equal only 5 per cent of U.S. manufacturing. About 83 per cent of Chinese technology exports are the exports of foreign companies, and the bulk of the profits go to those companies. Consequently, Chinese exports rely heavily on imported parts; the average Chinese export is made up of 75 per cent imported parts. China’s hi-tech imports greatly exceed its hi-tech exports.
What does this all mean? China is a venue, ONE venue for global manufacturing production. But, if there were no China that global production would be moving and changing manufacturing without her; with higher inputs to all the other Asian nations with large educated populations. Would I personally prefer to see it "go to" other nations, yes, if it is most efficient for some jobs to be done somewhere else I would prefer that it not be China, for political reasons. But that would not "keep" the lower value jobs here regardless. "China" is an affect in all this, not a cause.
In essence, productivity and the transformation of manufacturing companies has more to do with changes in "manufacturing jobs" in the U.S. than does China.
Yes, "Chinagate" permitted the transfer of technology that should not have been transferred, and yes, specialists believe it helped advance the timetable of Chinese missile development. And yes, Clinton probably got campaign $$$ from the exporters and China. And shame on us (Bush) for not assigning an independent prosecutor to it since 2000. But, it's a separate issue from the general China-trade and manufacturing-jobs issue, which, historically is not particularly, or uniquely a "Clinton" or even Dimorat thing.
Some manufacturing that NAFTA might have sent to Mexico didn't go there because of problems in Mexico; not because Mexico was intended be a way-station before moving it to Asia.
"Patent numbers used to appear on every product. Now they are almost irrelevent."
As of 2003, the United States accounted for 36.4% of patents internationally and gained 2 percentage points from its level in 1995 (34.4%). The proportion of patents originating from Europe and Japan has tended to decrease, losing more than 1 percentage point between 1995 and 2003 (to 30.3% and 25.7% respectively in 2003). China's was 0.3%, bested by Korea at 1.4%, Canada at 1.3%, Australia at 0.8% and little Israel @ 0.7%.
"99 cent stores were almost unheard of before 1992"
"Dollar" stores were big in the northeast in the 1980s.
Before I concede rather than risk looking silly discussing matters I may be a mile over my head with, please offer me the benefit of an education so that in accepting loss, I may glean knowledge for my trouble:
“As of 2003, the United States accounted for 36.4% of patents internationally and gained 2 percentage points from its level in 1995 (34.4%). The proportion of patents originating from Europe and Japan has tended to decrease, losing more than 1 percentage point between 1995 and 2003 (to 30.3% and 25.7% respectively in 2003). China’s was 0.3%, bested by Korea at 1.4%, Canada at 1.3%, Australia at 0.8% and little Israel @ 0.7%”
Does China renumerate American patent, copyright and name licensing fees to their US owners for goods they sell here? How about goods produced in Chaina but sold internationally?
“The rise of the service sector is not “at the expense of the manufacturing sector”. The reality is that while some workers lose steel jobs and move to McDonald’s, the larger trend is higher-paying service-sector jobs squeezing out lower-paid manufacturing jobs.”
I would still disagree with that scenario. I think factory jobs pay much better, if the blame should go not to Clinton so be it. I further think we have transformed from a producer society to a consumer one.
Finally, tell me this:
Did we invade Iraq because:
#1 you couldn’t seriously prosecute the war on terror with Saddam left blatantly defying us,it was about the spanking.
#2 we were so worried about WMD in the hands of Al Qaeda, even with the slim evidence, we thought it was worth the international ire.
#3 we didn’t want to have to clean up the mess we knew he’d make when sanctions ended.
#4 Saddam’s ties to international terrorism.
#5 other?
and if you will indulge me kindly:
Why is it sheer insanity when a liberal tells me Capital Hill Dems were duped by Bush over the JR, and particularly that Cheney “stovepiped” intel from INC stooge “curveball”(among others) and it’s Bush’s war?
Thank you in advance.
For goods manufactured in China for western corporations, in plants and via contracts operated in China by and/or for those western corporations, the answer is yes; because the contracting western corporations account for it.
Does patent/copyright theft occur in China - through illegal production of goods; goods which have valid western patents/copyrights behind them, via some factories that have not contracted with the western corporations who own those patents/copyrights?
Yes, and it occurs in Thailand, in Malaysia, in Indonesia, in Vietnam, in India and elsewhere. It is a problem all over Asia and one for which U.S. corporations and U.S. law enforcement employ, annually, millions of dollars and tens of thousands of people, here and overseas, to invoke counter measures, through legal, diplomatic, trade and corporate actions. It is almost always one of the topics in "trade" discussions with China (and others) and which US representatives usually state, after some specific negotiations, that changes and progress have been made, and there is more work that needs to be done. One could ask our Presidents and diplomats to be more demanding and as soon as they seem to head that way, the political interests here that are "benefiting" from "free trade" ask for more "diplomacy" and less "belligerence" - often they are some of the same interests complaining about the theft of their patents/copyrights (like two-faced Bill Gates - he scourges US gubernut for not doing enough to counter "Asian" theft of its products, and yet has a great friendship with the dictators of China).
"I would still disagree with that scenario. I think factory jobs pay much better, if the blame should go not to Clinton so be it. I further think we have transformed from a producer society to a consumer one."
"Manufacturing" thirty years ago was still a fully "integrated" and "unitary" process. From the CEO, through the HQ corporate staff, through engineering and product design, through finance, through IT systems, through purchasing, through facilities planning, through production planning, through production operations EVERYONE worked for "the company" and worked at a "company" location. It provided a lot of control but it came with a lot of extra costs; because every cost factor was internalized inside the company and the company had only its own bureaucracy to hold accountable for ALL the costs. Big bureaucracies will not hold themselves accountable - government or corporate; there is too much vested interest in turf that each special interest has worked hard to obtain. The reasons for "privatizing" many government activities finds the same rational logic in decomposing the total, unitary, integrated "manufacturer" into the most efficient sources for any element of the "manufacturing" process. The most efficient source may be internal, and it may not be, and there may be more than financial reasons to keep something internal, or similarly, non-financial reasons to place a function as a contract outside of the "manufacturer". Thus, whether here in the United States, in Japan and Korea, in Europe and in Asia the transformation of "manufacturing" is going to continue. But, economists say that for every "high end" "factory" job that leaves the United States, two "high-end" jobs that support "manufacturing" are created, internally and via outside contracts. What is changing the most is the skill sets needed for "high end" jobs in "manufacturing".
Case in point. A Toyota factory in Tennessee verses a GM factory in Michigan. If the Toyota plant in Tennessee operated the way the GM plant in Michigan operated, you would probably be happy, because in order to do that Toyota would have to hire more "factory workers" so it would increase auto "factory jobs" in the U.S.. But, then Toyota would no longer be making its cars with as much productivity as it does now. On the reverse side; If the GM plant operated equal to the Toyota plant, total auto "factory workers" in the US would decline, while production of GM automobiles would increase, at no additional cost. Its called progress, and its a factor in the reduction of "factory workers" in the US.
Why? Technology induced productivity. Technology, in the factory, continues a relentless march to reduce the number of individuals and the number of "man-hours" it takes to produce a given number of units of ANY product. Where manufacturing once relied on a majority of "highly skilled" floor workers in a factory, to produce a quality product, and, rightly could boast that its "workers" were a core factor in that quality, they now employ the majority of their "quality" inducing workers in the processes that engineer the product, engineer the production, program the production and program the delivery of resources to production - before production ever begins - like a major composer's major orchestral piece - for a highly computerized and robotic enhanced "manufacturing" process, from which most of the "quality" has been planned and accounted for before production ever begins. Short version - (1) it takes fewer "factory floor" workers to produce almost any product today and (2) those "factory" jobs that require the least skill and the least knowledge and education are the "manufacturing" jobs that go where semi-skilled labor is cheaper, while (3) the "factory jobs" that continue to grow require higher skills in technology and/or in using technology in the "factory".
"China" is simply another venue in this process, it is not a cause, and we could just as conveniently use many other venues, besides China, and unions would still be harping about loss of "factory jobs".
Would I, personally, prefer to see better "labor" standards written into our trade agreements? Yes, sometimes. For instance, China has now approved (nearly required) unions and Communist Party of China "worker organizations" in factories in China - only, not factories owned by "corporations" that are Chinese government entities. In other words, the workers for the westerners are to be allowed "labor bargaining" rights, only not if their "employer" is actually a part of the Chinese government.
But, other countries have other conditions that are just as egregious to our sensibilities on markets, labor relations and fair play between the corporation and labor, and we seem, as yet, as a nation (GOP or Dim) unwilling to fight for those kind of "market" agreements as strongly as we fight for the "freedom" of capital and capital alone.
I think, in many ways, in China and in the Middle East, we promote "free trade" almost with a singular interest and emphasis on the capital side of "markets", and that promotion and emphasis on the "rights" of capital is being handled at the expense of every other kind of "market" and political freedom. I believe we are, in the long run, endangering or own political-economic model, because that emphasis, on capital alone, is supporting the success of Chinese and Middle East political-economic models that are inimical to our freedoms in the long run.
Did we invade Iraq because:....#1 you couldn’t seriously prosecute the war on terror with Saddam left blatantly defying us, it was about the spanking........ #2 we were so worried about WMD in the hands of Al Qaeda, even with the slim evidence, we thought it was worth the international ire.......#3 we didn’t want to have to clean up the mess we knew he’d make when sanctions ended.......#4 Saddam’s ties to international terrorism......#5 other?
In my view, we wake up on 9/12 and realize (1)after twelve years of "diplomacy" we are still no closer to resolving the questions the world demanded Saddam answer in 1991; (2)Saddam is playing a game of "chicken" with the US and the world - he wants to get away with simply claiming he is not hiding anything while simultaneously (a) behaving as if he is hiding things, (b) actually is hiding some things and, most importantly, (c) doing everything he can to make sure we cannot get a completely transparent, completely cooperative, completely clear answer to the Saddam-WMD question.
The final UN resolution did not make finding working, live WMD production in Iraq a requirement for either the UN or the US. The requirement was 100% on Saddam and that requirement was for him to make it possible to completely transparently, completely cooperatively, completely and clearly find the answer to the Saddam-WMD question.
Saddam demanded we "take his word" while also making completely sure that we could not possibly be sure he did not continue to harbor WMD ambitions. Saddam demanded we proceed, after 9/11 with ambiguity, with uncertainty.
Most of us, including Bush, believed, post 9/11, that 12 years of failed diplomacy and Saddam's post 9/11 stance insured ambiguity and uncertainty about not only his WMD abilities, but his intentions. Iraq was already a destination for some Al Queda leaving Afghanistan (Zarqawi was already freely traveling between western Iraq, Baghdad and an Al Queda base on the northern Iraq-Iran border before the invasion of Iraq was assured). Baghdad was the destination (and the home in 2001) of the chemist who planned the 1993 WTC bombing. When one of the primary 1993 WTC bombing planners called overseas from NYC, he most frequently called Baghdad, to his uncle, who was a hireling of Saddam's intelligence apparatus who had been engaged for many years coordinating some of Saddam's funding and cooperation with terrorist groups in the Palestinian territories. One of the last intelligence-agency recorded events involving one of the 9/11 hijackers, before 9/11, was a meeting in Malaysia where that person was witnessed arriving at the airport and attending the meeting. His chauffeur was a man who had been not long in Malaysia and was employed by a man who was an Iraqi citizen, a "former" Iraqi intelligence agent "living" in Malaysia. The chauffeur drove the 9/11 hijacker from the airport to his meeting, which the chauffeur also attended (when you see the nature of the meeting you wonder what is the job description of this chauffeur), after which the chauffeur drove him back to the airport. Days later, the chauffeur left Malaysia for good, for Kuwait (he had a Kuwaiti passport) where the intelligence services then lost his trail, forever. But they did discover that his Kuwaiti passport was most likely forged and based on a Kuwaiti passport that the Iraqi's stole out of Kuwaiti government offices when they tried to strip Kuwait of everything they could (the age, height and weight of the named individual had been changed from the original that the individual had traveled on before the occupation of Kuwait). We later learned from KSM that the meeting in Malaysia was the last planning meeting for 9/11.
And that is just scratching the surface. What it amounts to is, post 9/11, too much uncertainty and too much ambiguity about Saddam and WMDs and about Saddam's intentions. Would he provide safe haven for Osama? Everyone of the "public" critics thought no, but there was enough "smoking" guns with intersections between Baghdad and Al Queda types to seriously question the strength of people's acceptance that Osama and Saddam would never cooperate. How about, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". We have seen now in Iraq that that has much more powerful acceptance between all the insurgent and terrorist groups than their secular and religious or sectarian divisions.
What we needed with Iraq post 9/11, was to remove uncertainty and remove ambiguity. Saddam had the power to do that. Both South Africa and Ukraine had produced models for unambiguous deconstruction of WMD (nuclear) programs. It was not "rocket science" and not difficult to achieve and not difficult to demonstrate they were not hiding anything. But, that clarity of intention is not what Saddam wanted to permit. He wanted to claim he had nothing, while the US was forced to not being able to meet that claim with unambiguous answers. Bush did what he had to do. He called the bluff. We now have the actual answers to questions Saddam did not want answered, and we now see what cooperation was possible between the Baathists in Iraq and Al Queda.
Lost in all the hoopla about what "was not found" in Iraq, is what was found, as detailed in the Dulfer report. Saddam broke the technology sanctions and with French, Russian and Chinese companies acquired duel-use technologies (for instance, factory materials that can make pharmaceuticals or biological toxins for weapons, or equipment that can make "industrial" parts or missile parts, etc.) Saddam broke down his WMD programs into segments, where one part of the project was assigned to an "industrial" lab, another to a college "research" facility", another to a "medical research facility", etc., etc; and only a small group of project leaders working directly for Saddam knew how the work of the programs fit together. The closer it got to where we might actually invade, the programs were stopped, the end-products of the research and a lot of the research was buried (his top nuclear scientists was told to bury a critical nuclear component in his garden at home). The paper trail found all over Iraq indicated very clearly what Saddam's method was: (1)acquire duel-use technology, (2)componentized R&D, (3)get the sanctions stopped and lifted, (4)after the sanctions would be lifted (promised by Chirac), then using the duel-use technology the programs would be pulled back together and recommenced in earnest. Bush was simply right not to trust Saddam, not to continue to play chicken with him, not to let 12 more years of "diplomacy" produce nothing, not to call Saddam's bluff.
The real answer needed was not "to find WMDs" but to get the WMD question answered with no doubts remaining. That is what Saddam would not permit, and that is what Bush needed and demanded.
"Why is it sheer insanity when a liberal tells me Capital Hill Dems were duped by Bush over the JR, and particularly that Cheney “stovepiped” intel from INC stooge “curveball”(among others) and it’s Bush’s war?"
It is "insanity" and all they are doing is exactly what they accuse Cheney of doing. They are cherry-picking intelligence.
They are cherry-picking certain pieces of intel and with the pieces they are cherry-picking they are (1)attributing the entire WMD question to just those pieces of intel and thus (2)falsely attributing the entire WMD answer to the veracity of those pieces alone.
First, you would have to accept the notion that the source "curveball" never provided a single piece of intel that was not true. Which, DOD and CIA answers in the Congressional intelligence hearings have shown is not the case.
Second, to accept even the slimmest notion of that argument, the "information obtained from sources like curveball" would have to be ALL the WMD Intel we had, as if we had nothing else, from no other sources in the whole world; which from any rational, knowledgeable, intelligent intelligence review of the matter, going back more than a decade is "insanity", because it is a totally false notion.
The other part of their complaint could be said like this: "How dare Dick Cheney question the "intelligence" and how dare Don Rumsfield have a department that reviews intelligence and asks the analysts to demonstrate the assumptions they used as the basis for their conclusions.
Yet, the truth is that intelligence analysis is one part bits and pieces of info, of various qualities with few absolute answers, and one part an attempt to conclude (speculate) what is the sum meaning of all the pieces. Yet, to not question the analysis of our intelligence is to shirk the responsibility of our elected officials to (a)actually govern as they were elected to and (b)actually conduct their responsibilities, which (c) includes overseeing and questioning the products of our intelligence community. What is interesting in the actual testimony of the intelligence analysts interviewed on this question by Congress. They admitted the "pressure" but admitted that they never thought Cheney's office or Rumsfield's group was looking for particular answers. They (Cheney's office and Rumsfield's group) consistently and intelligently made the analysts question the assumptions on which they based their conclusions. I cannot think of anything more appropriate to try to get intelligence analysts to do. We need an entire division under the new head of intelligence that tries to force everyone involved to think "outside the box", to challenge their assumptions, because 9/11 and Iraq demonstrate the intelligence community had not been doing a good job for a long time (nothing that Bush said about Iraq and WMDs had not been said by Clinton and Gore as late as 2002), and their ingrained assumptions and world views are a good part of the problem.
I got too long winded, I know. Sorry. I am sure I have condensed versions here and there and in various posts; I just did not go look for them.
Thank you for a splendid reply, you sre s veritable cornucopia of information. I’m sorry to admit half the reason I added the war question was to satisfy a curiosity that your expansive knowledge on financial matters was that of a one trick pony, but it seems you are well rounded. Impressed by your knowledge of the economy, I truly wanted to get your take on the war, I don’t ask that of many people. Within your accounts I find much validation confirming what I know and find a few things I didn’t.
Perhaps I can return the favor in a small way, even though you more than answered the curveball question factually, you didn’t quite nail the little known but damn sure should be by the left point:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/11/01/981101-in.htm
when clinton signed the Iraqi liberation act of 1998,it cited direct payment to the Iraqi National Congress of $3 million dollars, for:
As required
by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law
105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on
plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My
Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement
a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide,
crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq’s current leaders as a
step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such
acts.
and goes on to include eliminsting WMD with that. Notice that he said to collect information on ALLEGATIONS, not that any of it was true?
Finally if you look at that link you will see Clinton passed the mike to Chalabi himself to make a statement.
Yet you won’t see this repeated by anyone today. Public law, that the press calling it “Bush’s war” can’t find.
My take condensed is that Bush simply inherited US policy thst was fast tracked after 9/11, and Dems were lock step, I’d even say they egged him on, to do the job Clinton wouldn’t. After a highly successful invasion, they realized they might as well stay home in November 2004 but came up with a plan to #1, completely distance themselves from any responsibility, then #2, tank the sucker.
Enter Joe Wilson whose damage was enormous, being the first to cross the huge chasm between innocent presentation of faulty intel, to an insider stating they knew it was wrong.
The damage was so bad because just weeks later Bush went to Europe to ask NATO for help on the ground, and all they wanted to talk about was lies and yellowcake. Remember he didn’t just write an op-ed in a magazine, that op-ed was a CYA backing away from all his embellishments and lies told to over two dozen media outlets.
Cheers, and mucho respect.
Yes, as I said, there was NOTHING that Bush said about Iraq, about Saddam's support of terrorists and about Iraqi WMDs that (1)was not said by Clinton and Gore up to the very end of their administration and (2)was not said by and agreed to by Clinton and Gore, publicly in 2002/2003, prior to the Iraqi invasion (because the underlying intelligence was the same as what was given to Bush).
My take condensed is that Bush simply inherited US policy thst was fast tracked after 9/11, and Dems were lock step, I’d even say they egged him on, to do the job Clinton wouldn’t. After a highly successful invasion, they realized they might as well stay home in November 2004 but came up with a plan to #1, completely distance themselves from any responsibility, then #2, tank the sucker.
True enough that Bush inherited the "Iraqi regime change" foreign policy, officially adopted by Congress and signed by Clinton. But, it was never Clinton's policy. It was Congressional Republicans that forced Clinton to officially sign-on to a policy that matched the intelligence and the alarms he himself had made about Saddam. Had there not been the GOP in Congress in 1998 pushing for that policy, Clinton would not have come up with it on his own. He signed the Bill only so as to not appear weak on national security, but his heart and his personal efforts were never in it.
"Enter Joe Wilson whose damage was enormous, being the first to cross the huge chasm between innocent presentation of faulty intel, to an insider stating they knew it was wrong........The damage was so bad because just weeks later Bush went to Europe to ask NATO for help on the ground, and all they wanted to talk about was lies and yellowcake. Remember he didn’t just write an op-ed in a magazine, that op-ed was a CYA backing away from all his embellishments and lies told to over two dozen media outlets."
Joe-the-liar-Wilson had no lack of help from the media, which helped him conflate his trip into two things that his trip was not.
(1)it was not a definitive rejection of the Bush statement that "Saddam had recently attempted to purchase yellow cake in Africa". (A)Wilson's trip to Niger and Niger alone does not equal Africa. (B)Regardless of what conclusions Wilson came to, the CIA did not have a consensus opinion (after Wilson's trip) that agreed with Wilson and in one regard (conversation between Wilson and an ex-official from Niger) what was told to Wilson by an ex-official from Niger lent credibility (in the CIA's view) to the suspicion about Saddam's attempts to acquire yellowcake from Niger. (C)Long after the events, the independent Butler Commission in Britain looked at the intelligence passed to Bush, and on which he based his State of the Union statement, and found no reason to alter what Britain had told Bush or how Bush reported it.
(2)Wilson and his trip cannot be linked, as he has done, to "forged documents". (A)The "forged documents" do not enter the US intelligence stream until long after Wilson's trip and thus other intelligence, not the "forged documents" comprised the information leading to the question about Saddam and yellowcake from Niger. (B)And support, again from the independent Butler Commission confirms that.
My best guess is that people in the CIA, politically motivated rogues, and known to Plame and Wilson, manufactured the "forged documents" and using friends and associates in foreign intelligence services (French) put them into the intelligence stream themselves to damage Bush. The French had a ton of reasons, mostly self-serving, for not wanting us to get into Iraq (some of it Uranium related)
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.