Sunday, March 14, 2010
Though Bush 41 and Bush 43 often disagreed, one issue did unite them both with Bill Clinton: protectionism.
Globalists all, they rejected any federal measure to protect America's industrial base, economic independence or the wages of U.S. workers.
Together they rammed through NAFTA, brought America under the World Trade Organization, abolished tariffs and granted Chinese-made goods unrestricted access to the immense U.S. market.
Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled, in 44 pages of charts and graphs, the results of two decades of this Bush-Clinton experiment in globalization. His compilation might be titled, "Indices of the Industrial Decline and Fall of the United States."
From 2000 to 2009, industrial production declined here for the first time since the 1930s. Gross domestic product also fell, and we actually lost jobs.
In traded goods alone, we ran up $6.2 trillion in deficits -- $3.8 trillion of that in manufactured goods.
Things that we once made in America -- indeed, we made everything -- we now buy from abroad with money that we borrow from abroad.
Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.
The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world's, as well.
Not to worry, we hear, the foreign products we buy are toys and low-tech goods. We keep the high-tech jobs here in the U.S.A.
Sorry. U.S. trade surpluses in advanced technology products ended in Bush's first term. The last three years we have run annual trade deficits in ATP of nearly $70 billion with China alone.
About our dependency on Mideast oil we hear endless wailing.
Yet most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. And for every dollar we send abroad for oil or gas, we send $4.20 abroad for manufactured goods. Why is a dependency on the Persian Gulf for a fraction of the oil we consume more of a danger than a huge growing dependency on China for the necessities of our national life?
How great is that dependency?
China accounts for 83 percent of the U.S. global trade deficit in manufactures and 84 percent of our global trade deficit in electronics and machinery.
Over the last decade, our total trade deficit with China in manufactured goods was $1.75 trillion, which explains why China, its cash reserves approaching $3 trillion, holds the mortgage on America.
This week came a report that Detroit, forge and furnace of the Arsenal of Democracy in World War II, is considering razing a fourth of the city and turning it into farm and pastureland. Did the $1.2 trillion trade deficit we ran in autos and parts last decade help kill Detroit?
And if our purpose with NAFTA was to assist our neighbor Mexico, consider. Textile and apparel imports from China are now five times the dollar value of those imports from Mexico and Canada combined.
As exports are added to a nation's GDP, and a trade deficit subtracted, the U.S. trade deficits that have averaged $500 billion to $600 billion a year for 10 years represent the single greatest factor pulling the United States down and raising China up into a rival for world power.
Yet, what is as astonishing as these indices of American decline is the indifference, the insouciance of our political class. Do they care?
How can one explain it?
Ignorance of history is surely one explanation. How many know that every modern nation that rose to world power did so by sheltering and nurturing its manufacturing and industrial base -- from Britain under the Acts of Navigation to 1850, to protectionist America from the Civil War to the Roaring Twenties, to Bismarck's Germany before World War I, to Stalin's Russia, to postwar Japan, to China today?
No nation rose to world power on free trade. From Britain after 1860 to America after 1960, free trade has been the policy of powers that put consumption before production and today before tomorrow.
Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade.
Ideology is another explanation. Even a (Milton) Friedmanite free-trader should be able to see the disaster all around us and ask: What benefit does America receive from these mountains of imported goods to justify the terrible damage done to our country and countrymen?
Can they not see the correlation between the trade deficits and relative decline?
Republicans seem certain to benefit from the nation's economic crisis this November. But is there any evidence they have learned anything about economics from the disastrous Bush decade?
Do they have any ideas for a wholesale restructuring of U.S. trade and tax policy, for a course correction to prevent America's continuing decline?
Has anyone seen any evidence of it?
Patrick Buchanan is the author of the book "Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War."
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
Comments
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
Can't argue with a thing Mr. Buchanan has stated. Free trade has been our downfall. We need fair trade and, as he suggested, incentives for manufacturers to begin a new industrial revolution here.
March 14, 2010 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kloj (anonymous) says...
Absolutely true! I work on a loading dock for a retail store and it's real scary to see just how few products are made here.
If we went to war with China, I doubt they would supply our armies!
March 14, 2010 at 11:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towncar07 (anonymous) says...
Just to make a short example, the US used to export cotton and import silk...now we import BOTH cotton and silk...same with many other items too numerous to list...if another country (like China) can manufacture better items for less money, then demand will go to those who offer more for less...but if our own Country's labor and material costs are such that a much higher price is needed for profit, then fair trade get sacrificed on the altar of free trade.
Would you pay $85.00 for a toaster that was not as good as a foreign brand and the foreign brand only cost $ 45.00? Competition for customers lies not only in cost, quality and quantity, but demand and price and ability to deliver are the backbone of our system, which demands distribution at the right price. Hence to the right product at the right price goes the order.
I'm all for FAIR trade, but can our labor force be willing to do what needs to be done (wages,quality) in order to implement demand for our domestically produced goods? The unions may disagree with the obvious answer, and therein lies the problem.
March 14, 2010 at 12:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
Towncar07, I understand your argument, but if it were fair trade, the $45 toaster might cost more if their government was not subsidizing the toaster makers. That's not always the case, but a lot of dumping is happening from foreign countries. Would Americans want to work for $1.50 a day to make toasters, I doubt it. Do we want to lower our standard of living to where $1.50 a day looks good? I don't think so. Can we open manufacturing facilities today and pay "union wages" and be competetive? I don't think we can. As long as foreign manufacturers have the advantage of people who will work for next to nothing and our tax code makes it attractive for corprations to make use of this inexpensive labor, we will just keep going downhill. There has to be a compromise somewhere, but I don't know where or what it is.
March 14, 2010 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towncar07 (anonymous) says...
Good points Rune04, but how do (we) compete with subsidized or cheap labor? The market will demand the best for lowest, so unfair pandemonium would result in trying to keep everything "level" when in fact there is no level...hence tariffs which unbalance the trade regardless.
It's a tight rope, I agree.
March 14, 2010 at 3:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigjohn (anonymous) says...
Hey, those COMMUNIST CHINESE got a raise. On the news a couple of days ago they said the average wage was EIGHTY ONE CENTS AN HOUR, wow, that's $6.48 a day, WITH NO BENEFITS. Remember, Clinton and the boys said " FOREIGN COMPETITION IS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER.'' How's that working for everybody now?????????????
March 14, 2010 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Towncar07 (anonymous) says...
Also right bigjohn, but the Chinese do make superior products...and they also make pure junk...dangerous junk. I saw a Cobra Driver at a show for $59.95...made in China...and I took a practice swing and the head flew off...the vendor wanted me to pay him...No way, I'm glad I didn't buy...If it's too good to be true...and that Driver normally sells for $ 299 Discounted.
Any Golf nuts interested...COBRA has been sold by Acushnet (div of Fortune Brands) to PUMA...a German sports company. (Cobra was invented by Greg Norman...who sold it to Fortune) a/o this past week.
March 14, 2010 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tradite (anonymous) says...
Of course the problem is the greedy consumer. The American consumer doesn't care where the product comes from as long as it is cheap. I try always to buy American IF I can find a product made in America. I'm willing to pay a bit more and a lot of times it is only a bit more.
March 15, 2010 at 5:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gman (anonymous) says...
wages are the #1 reason for differences in cost. American business also has to contend with
social security, medicare/medicaid, workman's comp, unemployment insurance, osha, the cost of complying with civil rights legislation and the inevitable law suits, etc.
March 15, 2010 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nick (anonymous) says...
Republicans go silent on a remark like yours taxpayer, yet they continue to state that that the GOP really cares about working class Americans. Which is (one reason) why I call them hypocrites.
March 15, 2010 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tmmy99 (anonymous) says...
Nick-
keep waving your pom-poms for the biggest hypocrit of them all (obama)
keep waving your pom-poms for the street whore thug mentality of a president
that u think is so superior than any one else that has not and will not accomplish any of your goals you have for him.
nick you can call me a third grader all you want---I don;t care.
but to hear you rant and rave about a street whore thug all the time with no accomplishments but bankrupting america is pathetic. as u know ignorance is bliss.
March 15, 2010 at 4:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bigjohn (anonymous) says...
Hey nick, you mean the republicans care about worker's in America as much as Bill Clinton when he signed NAFTA into law??????????? TAXPAYER, the cars would also be cheaper in your senario because there would only be three companies having to meet their "break even point".
March 15, 2010 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nick (anonymous) says...
bigjohn (anonymous) says...
Hey, those COMMUNIST CHINESE got a raise. On the news a couple of days ago they said the average wage was EIGHTY ONE CENTS AN HOUR, wow, that's $6.48 a day, WITH NO BENEFITS. Remember, Clinton and the boys said " FOREIGN COMPETITION IS GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER.'' How's that working for everybody now?????????????
Here's a little history for you, Darn those nasty details that Republicans like to ignore:
Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the House of Representatives, Clinton introduced clauses to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.
March 16, 2010 at 7:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tmmy99 (anonymous) says...
Here's a little history for you, Darn those nasty details that Democrats like to ignore:
Blue stained dress
March 16, 2010 at 9:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jesfam (anonymous) says...
However I do believe it was Clinton that gave China "favored trade status" which open the doors wide open to the U.S. And I think there was some questionable campaign contributions from China MAYBE in return
March 16, 2010 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rune04 (anonymous) says...
Closing our borders is not feasible. As far as only having the big three, I'm sure you remember the quality of the cars before outside competition came into play. That's what got us in the mess with UAW in the first place. The big three didn't have to worry about being efficient. They could afford to do whatever they wanted.
March 17, 2010 at 6:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nick (anonymous) says...
jesfam (anonymous) says...
However I do believe it was Clinton that gave China "favored trade status" which open the doors wide open to the U.S.
MFN/NTR status for China, a non-market economy, which had been originally suspended in 1951, was restored in 1980 and was continued in effect through subsequent annual Presidential extensions.
March 17, 2010 at 8:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jesfam (anonymous) says...
China a non-market economy...Whats that mean? Thinking that they would play fair and let us sell some stuff over there on an even playing field our infinitly wise congress granted and Bill signed it Permanent NTR. No more annual revue....Hows that workin now
March 17, 2010 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nick (anonymous) says...
Ask Reagan!
March 18, 2010 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )