Posted on 07/30/2003 11:04:15 AM PDT by ex-snook
| U.S. prosperity begins at home Saturday, July 26th, 2003 Lou Dobbs The controversy over proposed "buy American" provisions in next year's Pentagon budget is a reminder of just how complicated the globalization of markets has become. The provisions, offered by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), would make it mandatory for contractors to use machine tools and molds made in America when working on defense acquisition programs of more than $5 million. "Other countries just have to understand," said Hunter. "We have to do everything we can to protect our defense industrial base." Others argue that the idea will prove too burdensome to aerospace contractors and will be a detriment to U.S. international relations. Some free-trade advocates say exceptions, even for defense, create problems. Dan Griswold, associate director of trade policy at the Cato Institute, asks, "How can we ask foreign governments to allow American companies to compete fairly for their government contracts when we don't allow their companies to compete fairly for our government contracts?" It's a fair question. But Hunter is absolutely right that this country cannot be dependent on foreign producers for our national security. Hunter has created an uproar precisely because there are often confounding contradictions between policies that are in the best interest of our national security and policies that are in the best interest of our economy. Free trade supporters claim that globalization has brought us closer to our allies and lowered prices for American consumers. 3 million jobs lost But try persuading the millions of Americans who've lost their jobs over the past few years that globalization is a great idea. And many economists are beginning to notice that a pure ideological commitment to free trade may be as foolhardy as absolute protectionism. There is evidence that open trade policies and global trade pacts have been ultimately detrimental to the U.S. economy. The Economic Policy Institute found that an estimated 3 million American jobs were lost due to NAFTA and WTO agreements. In addition, the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico has multiplied by 10 since the 1993 NAFTA agreement while our economy hasn't quite doubled. Our international deficit in goods and services increased to $42 billion in May. In 2002 our current account deficit, the Commerce Department's broadest measure of trade, hit a record $503 billion. This means that we are buying far more in goods and services from the rest of the world than we are selling. And the Economic Policy Institute estimates that 99% of this deficit comes from goods we now buy overseas because we no longer make them here. That should be alarming to even the most ardent free-trade advocates. Staunch protectionists believe we can turn back the clock and use high tariffs to protect every industry in this country. Their absolutism forces most of us to dismiss even their valid points. And the absolutists who demand free trade should be dismissed every bit as quickly. There is no more glaring example of the folly of unrestricted trade than China. The United States ran an almost $10 billion goods deficit with China in May. As Roger Simmermaker, who wrote the book "How Americans Can Buy American" put it, "China would have no interest in opening its markets to the United States because they enjoy almost unimpeded and unlimited access to our market while they practice protectionism at home." Too high a price We need to reexamine how our trade policies have negatively affected our economy while boosting the economies of other nations. We can no longer sustain a free-trade policy that does not insist on reciprocal, mutual benefits to both our economy and those of our trading partners. Globalization at any price is proving to be too high a price for this nation to pay. |
< /violins playing>
There....
Roll over and go back to sleep. Sorry to wake you up.
Yes, because that was the last haven of the American Middle Class, supposedly. Manufacturing moving offshore actually seemed logical and sensible, since it is a polluting set of industries. The Powers That Be swore that we would all continue to work, but we'd be in white collar jobs instead.
Now it looks like we'll be in pink-collar jobs, because none of us will be able to afford shirts.
Manufacturing has largely moved offshore, at least for the vast majority of the jobs. So if we are rapidly offshoring (and thusly equally rapidly not doing) accounting, engineering, software, call-center work, reading and interpreting medical data, financial planning, and soon enough medical doctor and lawyering work; and if immigrants are doing transportation, agriculture, and the remaining other low-tech work; and if robotics will be completely eliminating 90% of retail sales jobs with RFID technology.....
....then tell me what other 'trick' we will be ponying up for our paychecks, please?
And so was Pat!
A broken clock is right twice daily.
This check went into my savings account for when I get layed off from my tech job.
These are important points. There is a desperate need for some sanity in DC and in corporate America.
How strange it is that those who call for a balance of trade are called extremists.
< /violins playing>
There....
Ah the pshychotic Chinese representative comes in with a coupel of one liners. Either get back on your psychotorpics or else please go to the nation you so dearly love the People's Republic of China. should you have entered any sane comment on this thread reasonable discussion with you would have ensued.
I understand the mind set you were in and it did seem sensible but whenever anyone tells you what a good deal they are going to be giving you hold onto your wallet shirt and everything else because what they are really telling You is BOHICA. The simple fact is that the USA can not exist on zero manufacturing.
...The Powers That Be swore that we would all continue to work, but we'd be in white collar jobs instead.
Remember this went through on Clinton's watch and he supported it. So they swore so it was merely another lie. Now it looks like we'll be in pink-collar jobs, because none of us will be able to afford shirts.
I noticed he fell silent when I asked what Murricans would be working and doing.
Fascinating that he admits to a Chinese connection, via family, building a factory there. Of course, he has the same motivation as us -- to make a living -- but it is interesting to know which side of the argument his motivation is pushing him to defend.
Wonder which of the current batch of politicians will be the first to respond to the 'sucking sound'? Demorats from Congress are probably all compromised and Bush needs a hearing aid.
Well, no one told me what a good deal it was. They mostly just looked at the reality -- a declining manufacturing base -- and said not to worry since Murrica would be flush with whitecollar jobs.
And to be fair, we are a long way from a zero-manufacturing base, aren't we?
Actually, Bush might be on this. He had an interesting Freudian slip today: "I will never assume the restraint and goodwill of dangerous enemies when lives of our citizens are at work," said Bush.
IMHO it can never get to zero but taht is just me. yes we still have a long way to go to get to zero but we had best start growing or we can expect a cataclysm.
Lets see now he is arguing for deveopment of China instead of the USA. he has a financial interest in Chinese development. china has stated they are in an economic war with us. He purports to be an American. Can you now see why I sometimes use that loaded harsh phrase to describe such people?
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.