|
Post by jdredd on Nov 7, 2010 2:13:08 GMT -5
www.thenation.com/article/155848/end-free-trade-globalization"The world economy is on the brink again, facing a crisis of epic dimensions for reasons largely obscured by the inflamed politics of 2010. Against their wishes, the United States and China have been drawn into an increasingly nasty and dangerous fight over currencies and trade. American politicians, especially desperate Democrats, have framed the conflict in familiar moral terms—a melodrama of America wronged—and demand retaliation. Other nations, sensing the risk of a larger breakdown, have begun to take protective measures. Every man for himself. The center is not holding." "The fact is, the United States and China, motivated by different but mutually reinforcing reasons, collaborated to create the unbalanced trading system. American multinationals eagerly sought access to China's market. The Chinese wanted factories and the modern technologies needed to develop a first-class industrial base. American companies agreed to the basic trade-off: China would let them in to make and sell stuff, and they would share technology and teach Chinese partners how it's done. Not coincidentally, US corporations also gained enormous bargaining power over workers back home by threatening to go abroad for cheaper labor if unions didn't give wage concessions." "Which brings us to the present crisis. China's exports exploded toward the end of the Clinton years and expanded even more ferociously under George W. Bush. So did the offloading of US jobs and manufacturing. China's wave of new competition crashed over every industrial economy, but disruptions were most devastating for the United States." "President Obama, unlike his predecessors, understands the problem. He has been trying for the past year to persuade foreign governments to cooperate, with meager results so far." "Only in America do multinationals get to behave like free riders, with no strings attached. They harvest public money as subsidies and investment capital, they are protected by US armed forces and diplomacy, and they are rescued when they get into trouble. It is a one-way relationship, and the American public knows it." "All these suggestions are deeply disruptive to global commerce, and, yes, many would raise prices for Americans. But the country's predicament is a historic emergency that cannot wait for market solutions. The United States must, in effect, decide that its role as Goliath is over. It's time to act like a nation again rather than as the global overseer. If Barack Obama doesn't find the nerve to act, maybe the next president will." What's the GOP's solution? Return to "Business as Usual" of the Bush years. Isn't that what got us into this mess?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 12, 2010 16:20:10 GMT -5
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-obama-summit-20101113,0,3564344.story "British Prime Minister David Cameron warned of the risks of that route at the summit opening, saying failure by the G-20 to accomplish some sort of global accommodation could lead to "a return to what happened in the 1930s: protectionism, trade barriers, currency wars, countries pursuing beggar-thy-neighbor policies; trying to do well for themselves but not caring about the rest of the world." "Beggar-thy-neighbor" policies? Isn't that what competition is all about, gaining advantage over the other guy? Another whining European. Cameron, of course, was put into office by Rupert Murdoch. Conspiracy? "As the leaders gathered in Seoul, Bank of China Chairman Xiao Gang called the Fed's move "dangerous," writing in the semiofficial China Daily newspaper that it had driven the dollar down in value, raised expectations of inflation and hurt other economies. That position was backed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said the U.S. was "pursuing a policy of currency weakening." Now isn't that special, Ayn Rand apostle Greenspan joining up with the Communist Chinese. You want a conspiracy, how about that, Beck? I can find dozens of them.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Nov 13, 2010 1:22:29 GMT -5
"As the leaders gathered in Seoul, Bank of China Chairman Xiao Gang called the Fed's move "dangerous," writing in the semiofficial China Daily newspaper that it had driven the dollar down in value, raised expectations of inflation and hurt other economies. That position was backed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said the U.S. was "pursuing a policy of currency weakening." Now isn't that special, Ayn Rand apostle Greenspan joining up with the Communist Chinese. You want a conspiracy, how about that, Beck? I can find dozens of them. What is interesting is that Obama stood on a stage (this week) and proclaimed that we were not in pursuit of weakening our currency but just attempting to "revive" the economy. The administration needs to get their act together as to WHAT they are REALLY doing! SOMEONE is LYING!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 13, 2010 3:44:35 GMT -5
"As the leaders gathered in Seoul, Bank of China Chairman Xiao Gang called the Fed's move "dangerous," writing in the semiofficial China Daily newspaper that it had driven the dollar down in value, raised expectations of inflation and hurt other economies. That position was backed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said the U.S. was "pursuing a policy of currency weakening." Now isn't that special, Ayn Rand apostle Greenspan joining up with the Communist Chinese. You want a conspiracy, how about that, Beck? I can find dozens of them. What is interesting is that Obama stood on a stage (this week) and proclaimed that we were not in pursuit of weakening our currency but just attempting to "revive" the economy. The administration needs to get their act together as to WHAT they are REALLY doing! SOMEONE is LYING! A President and his administration lying? What a shock!
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 13, 2010 4:07:44 GMT -5
I remember a decade or two ago being amused at the great scam the international bankers were pulling over on us: Borrowing money from them to make the payments on money we had already borrowed from them. But now the bankers want us to cut back on our borrowing, which is why they are promoting cheapskate governments all over the world. Why would that be? I would guess that our debt has reached a point where they are worried if we can still pay them back and not default. So they want governments that will cut back on spending other than making debt payments. They have gotten those governments in most of the world except for that pesky U.S.A., who's present administration still wants to have it's wars and also give it's citizens trillions of retirement and health care dollars. And that is why the international bankers and the Tea Partyers are in tune, the Tea Partyers understandably motivated by not wanting to hand their children and grandchildren a huge debt. So what's my problem with that? Obviously, I believe in an activist government which is there to help it's citizens, not some cheapskate useless government. And if all our money is going to the bankers, it's really going to piss me off. But as usual, I'm going against the tide. Such is life.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 14, 2010 1:17:16 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/opinion/13lighthizer.html?_r=2&ref=opinion"At first glance, the Tea Party’s position may seem contradictory: its small-government, pro-business views usually go hand in hand with free trade. But if you consider the dominant themes underlying its agenda, it makes sense that the movement would be wary about free-trade policies. For starters, Tea Partyers are frustrated with Washington, and that includes its failure to make free trade work for America. Our trade deficit in manufactured goods was about $4.3 trillion during the last decade, and the country lost some 5.6 million manufacturing jobs. "And while the Tea Party supports market outcomes, its members appear to believe that the rest of the world is stacking the free-trade deck against us. They have a point: most policymakers agree that the Chinese currency is grossly and deliberately undervalued, that China fails to respect intellectual property rights and that it uses government subsidies to protect its own manufacturing base. Meanwhile, the movement says, the United States does virtually nothing in response." "In short, the apparent contradiction between the Tea Party’s fiscal conservatism and its skepticism about free trade may not be a contradiction at all. If the Tea Party continues to influence the Republican agenda, it may not only spell bad news for the South Korea free trade agreement — it could also mean a fundamental reorientation of our country’s attitude toward trade and globalization." Maybe I was wrong about the Tea Partyers being totally in tune with the bankers...attacking free trade would really rock the boat. Are the TPers really sure what they stand for?
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Nov 14, 2010 3:58:45 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/opinion/13lighthizer.html?_r=2&ref=opinion"At first glance, the Tea Party’s position may seem contradictory: its small-government, pro-business views usually go hand in hand with free trade. But if you consider the dominant themes underlying its agenda, it makes sense that the movement would be wary about free-trade policies. For starters, Tea Partyers are frustrated with Washington, and that includes its failure to make free trade work for America. Our trade deficit in manufactured goods was about $4.3 trillion during the last decade, and the country lost some 5.6 million manufacturing jobs. "And while the Tea Party supports market outcomes, its members appear to believe that the rest of the world is stacking the free-trade deck against us. They have a point: most policymakers agree that the Chinese currency is grossly and deliberately undervalued, that China fails to respect intellectual property rights and that it uses government subsidies to protect its own manufacturing base. Meanwhile, the movement says, the United States does virtually nothing in response." "In short, the apparent contradiction between the Tea Party’s fiscal conservatism and its skepticism about free trade may not be a contradiction at all. If the Tea Party continues to influence the Republican agenda, it may not only spell bad news for the South Korea free trade agreement — it could also mean a fundamental reorientation of our country’s attitude toward trade and globalization." Maybe I was wrong about the Tea Partyers being totally in tune with the bankers...attacking free trade would really rock the boat. Are the TPers really sure what they stand for? I think someone lit the candle for you. As we lose (export) jobs in manufacturing, we increase our imports by importing what we used to make. That is a lose-lose situation. Keeping our companies competitive is how we keep those jobs here and reduce those imports. It is both a mixture of government regulations AND (in most cases) union restraint that will help keep companies competitive. It is difficult enough that companies here are competing with foriegn companies that pay half the wages, while government regulations put additional burdens on the companies that don't exist in other countries. That doesn't mean that all those regulations are bad, but many of them are just simply harmful to doing business with very little real benefit to the country or the government. There needs to be a balance in order to benefit. One of the biggest causes (other than wages) that is forcing companies to other countries are because of overly restrictive environmental laws. California's own environmental laws exceed the federal guidelines, thus the exodus of companies from Californa when they have a choice to make, sometimes moving to another state or moving overseas. Our nation suffers a similar exodus. We are not the only country suffering from this. Many companies in Japan have been moving factories to China too! Almost all of the Japanese cameras are now made in China, as an example.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 14, 2010 5:00:04 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2010/11/13/opinion/13lighthizer.html?_r=2&ref=opinion"At first glance, the Tea Party’s position may seem contradictory: its small-government, pro-business views usually go hand in hand with free trade. But if you consider the dominant themes underlying its agenda, it makes sense that the movement would be wary about free-trade policies. For starters, Tea Partyers are frustrated with Washington, and that includes its failure to make free trade work for America. Our trade deficit in manufactured goods was about $4.3 trillion during the last decade, and the country lost some 5.6 million manufacturing jobs. "And while the Tea Party supports market outcomes, its members appear to believe that the rest of the world is stacking the free-trade deck against us. They have a point: most policymakers agree that the Chinese currency is grossly and deliberately undervalued, that China fails to respect intellectual property rights and that it uses government subsidies to protect its own manufacturing base. Meanwhile, the movement says, the United States does virtually nothing in response." "In short, the apparent contradiction between the Tea Party’s fiscal conservatism and its skepticism about free trade may not be a contradiction at all. If the Tea Party continues to influence the Republican agenda, it may not only spell bad news for the South Korea free trade agreement — it could also mean a fundamental reorientation of our country’s attitude toward trade and globalization." Maybe I was wrong about the Tea Partyers being totally in tune with the bankers...attacking free trade would really rock the boat. Are the TPers really sure what they stand for? I think someone lit the candle for you. As we lose (export) jobs in manufacturing, we increase our imports by importing what we used to make. That is a lose-lose situation. Keeping our companies competitive is how we keep those jobs here and reduce those imports. It is both a mixture of government regulations AND (in most cases) union restraint that will help keep companies competitive. It is difficult enough that companies here are competing with foriegn companies that pay half the wages, while government regulations put additional burdens on the companies that don't exist in other countries. That doesn't mean that all those regulations are bad, but many of them are just simply harmful to doing business with very little real benefit to the country or the government. There needs to be a balance in order to benefit. One of the biggest causes (other than wages) that is forcing companies to other countries are because of overly restrictive environmental laws. California's own environmental laws exceed the federal guidelines, thus the exodus of companies from Californa when they have a choice to make, sometimes moving to another state or moving overseas. Our nation suffers a similar exodus. We are not the only country suffering from this. Many companies in Japan have been moving factories to China too! Almost all of the Japanese cameras are now made in China, as an example. You've made some good points. Unfortunately, deregulating leads to what has been called a "Race to the Bottom", with the state or nation with the lowest wages and lax environmental regulations winning. "Magic of the Marketplace" at work, I guess, which is why I suppose Japan is losing out to China. That is why the struggle for worker rights and environmental protection is a world-wide struggle. Unethical businesses can run but eventually they will run out of places to hide. Well I can hope, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 15, 2010 16:17:43 GMT -5
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704327704575614861674707990.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop"Europe's debt crisis entered a critical new phase as Ireland resisted pressure from the European Central Bank and national governments to seek a bailout amid growing concern that the currency bloc could unravel." "Reassurances from European leaders late last week that investors wouldn't be forced to bear the pain of any bailout in the near term helped stabilize the region's bond markets and the euro on Friday, but policy makers remain concerned that allowing Ireland's problems to fester could renew the selloff." "The ECB believes that having IMF and EU oversight of Ireland's budget—a prerequisite for a bailout—would give added international credibility to Dublin's austerity measures. The Irish are trying to rein in a budget deficit that is expected to top 30% of gross domestic product this year." "Ireland's government remains reluctant to accept the deepened austerity that a bailout would likely entail. An EU-led rescue package would include a tough policy program drawn up in conjunction with the IMF, people familiar with the matter say." I guess the bankers don't mind getting nations further into debt as long as austerity measures make sure all a country's wealth flows to the bankers ("investors") and not the people.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 15, 2010 16:33:38 GMT -5
Meanwhile, back at home: www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/business/economy/16exports.html?_r=1&hp"Though a weakened dollar would help exports to some degree, business executives and economists said that because of the ways American multinational companies operated, it was uncertain whether it would cause much of an increase in hiring." Yep, it's hard to increase exports when you don't make anything to export. Isn't free trade great?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Nov 24, 2010 15:24:51 GMT -5
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11825643"The Socialist government wants to quell international unease over the country's public spending and deficit by cutting wages for public sector workers, freezing pensions and increasing taxes." What are you going to do when even Socialist governments are bending over and dropping their pants for international investors? Whatever happened to "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees"? I guess it's just a different century... I'm glad I'm old.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 26, 2012 2:55:44 GMT -5
www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/world-headed-de-globalization_634384.html"We may be entering an era of creeping de-globalization. It is one thing to be generous with the perceived foibles of your trading partners when your economy is growing and jobs are plentiful. It is quite another to decide to be tolerant when your economy is struggling, and domestic political pressure to create jobs and raise wages is increasing." "Whether all of this represents a fraying around the edges of the trading regime that has accompanied globalization, or the beginning of a return to autarky is difficult to say. But we can say that the constituency for free trade, always dispersed and less noisy than advocates of protectionist measures, is in retreat."
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 16, 2012 23:49:35 GMT -5
Now, in the "WHAT end of globalization?" department comes this: www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/walt-disney-to-co-produce-iron-man-3-in-china-with-dmg.html"Walt Disney Co. (DIS), the world’s largest entertainment company, plans to co-produce “Iron Man 3” with Beijing film studio DMG Entertainment as collaborations between Hollywood and Chinese studios increase. The movie will have an investment of least 1 billion yuan ($158 million), DMG Chairman Peter Xiao told reporters in Beijing yesterday. The Chinese company will invest in the production and help distribute it in China, Burbank, California- based Disney said today in a statement." "The agreement marks a milestone as “the first multibillion dollar franchise to be produced between Hollywood and China,” said Dan Mintz, chief executive officer of DMG. Chinese elements will be added to the film, he said." Two things:
1. This is evidence of my accusation that American corporations were not innocent victims of industries being shipped overseas, but willing accomplices.
2. What the heck are "chinese elements"?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 12, 2015 15:07:58 GMT -5
america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/6/12/obama-fights-to-salvage-trade-vote-despite-liberal-rebellion.html"The House of Representatives has stymied a proposal to grant the president "fast-track" authority for trade deals, despite a last-minute attempt by President Barack Obama to cajole Democratic representatives into supporting the legislation. Hours before divided lawmakers were due to vote on legislation central to his hallmark Pacific Rim trade deal, Obama attended a closed-door meeting of House Democrats, in an unusual move. But despite the president's urgings, most of the Democratic caucus declined to support his position. Lawmakers slowed the fast-track bill by defeating Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), an amendment intended to provide aid for U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of the trade pact. The Senate had approved the measures as a linked package, meaning both had to be approved in order to bring them straight to the president's desk. The bill would give Obama so-called fast-track authority to speed up legislative approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free-trade deal that will encompass 12 nations and 40 percent of the global economy if passed." I don't know a whole lot about the whole drowsiness-inducing subject of trade agreements (Did NAFTA bring good or ill? Depends on who you are, I suppose), but I am pretty certain any deal pushed by both Obummer and Boner has got to suck.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Oct 7, 2015 2:03:34 GMT -5
www.nationalreview.com/article/425116/mobility-globalization-poverty-solutionThere are some desperately poor places in these United States, in the rural South, true, but also within walking distance of Fifth Avenue. My own experience in Appalachia and the South Bronx suggests that the best thing that people trapped in poverty in these undercapitalized and dysfunctional communities could do is — move. Get the hell out of Dodge, or Eastern Kentucky, or the Bronx. Cheap moralizing of the sort that Theroux engages in, or the cheap sentimentalism that informs the Trump-Buchanan-Sanders view of globalization — “globalization” being another way of saying “human cooperation” — helps exactly no one. We spend a great deal of money trying to help poor people in backwards communities go to college; we’d probably get better results if we spent 20 percent of that helping them go to Midland, Texas, or Williamsport, Pa., or San Jose, Calif., where they’re paying delivery drivers $25 an hour to bring people their fruity gluten-free lunches. Send them to Marysville, Ohio, where they can build high-tech supercars in the employ of the wily Japanese." Oh, is that what globalism is. Who knew? Still, globalization also means auto industry jobs in Michigan going to Mexico, and zillions of toys an other manufactured items being made in China getting shipped to the USA, made possible by incredibly large amounts of inexpensive petroleum. But perhaps I am picking nits. If globalization has reduced poverty in large parts of the world, should anyone complain? Certainly not the several thousand families now worth billions.
|
|