Skip to main content

View Diary: AZ-03: Shocking Democratic pickup opportunity (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Sorry, that was a potatoe joke. n/t (8+ / 0-)

      Those who forget the lessons of history are probably watching Glenn Beck.

      by ontheleftcoast on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 11:26:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those anti-India posts at 'Think' 'Progress' (0+ / 0-)
      falsely frame India at many levels, and mislead the readers and the American public. It's false innuendo.

      Their posts do not take into account the fact that the Chamber of Commerce has AmChams and business councils in 100+ countries (as I pointed out to you in another comment):

      American Chambers of Commerce Abroad

      The American Chambers of Commerce Abroad (AmChams) advance the interests of American business overseas. They are voluntary associations of American companies and individuals doing business in a particular country, as well as firms and individuals of that country who operate in the United States. Currently, 113 AmChams in 100 countries are affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

      AmChams pursue trade policy initiatives, make available publications and services, and sponsor a variety of business development programs. Through four regional organizations in Asia, Europe, the Gulf Countries, and Latin America/the Caribbean, the AmChams represent the concerns and interests of the business community at the highest levels of government and business in trade policy development.

      For example, the China AmCham has 1200+ corporate members:

      AmCham-China means business for companies of all sizes

      We help our more than 2,500 individual members from over 1,200 companies succeed in China by providing unparalleled government advocacy, multiple networking opportunities, valuable information and intelligence, and comprehensive business support services.Click here to join us by filling out an online application form.
      Other China-based AmChams here).
      There is also a US-China Chamber of commerce.

      Nor does that post mention the fact that the US-India business council (USIBC) has many more American companies (some major ones being Boeing, IBM, HP, Dell, Lockheed Martin, Cisco, etc, who are all doing business in India, i.e. selling their goods and services there, and are thus creating or supporting American jobs in the US, along with making some money and garnering all-too-important market share in a growing Indian economy) than it does Indian companies. The total membership dues raised by the USIBC from its American members likely far exceed those from the Indian ones.'s series of posts accuse, with no evidence, some kind of wrong intent on the part of those Indian companies for merely joining a trade organization and paying membership dues. If you owned a company and wanted to do some business in India (or in the UK, China, or any of the 100+ countries where the CoC has some trade organizations), you'd probably join an "AmCham" based in that country and/or a Chamber-affiliated business council for that country to get some help with your trading there, and pay your membership dues to those trade organization(s). Does that, by itself, make you some kind of an evil corporate entity trying to destroy that country or its economy? It doesn't.

      I ask you and others to stop unfairly Swiftboating India like this, when, as it turns out, India is a balanced-trading partner of the US (see my sigline). In other words, US companies are trading with India, and Indian companies are trading with the US, in a more or less balanced (exports roughly equaling imports) manner overall, and that's how the US' trade with all its major trading partners ought to be: balanced trade.

      It becomes painfully evident from US' foreign trade numbers (BEA, Census) that the US badly needs to start balancing its trade (with China, in particular, with which the US has about $200-300 billion annual trade deficit) to bring the millions of jobs that were lost due to unbalanced trading back to America. It's like balancing the checkbook.

      A fear and paranoia based approach to trade ("outsourcing", as the term is typically used, is trade in services), globalization and jobs is not going to lead to solutions. A reality-based, reasoned and reasoned approach, along with fair-minded political rhetoric, will tend to work better and potentially yield effective solutions.

      •  Ballanced my ass. (0+ / 0-)

        When just one of the three jobs I've had that was shipped to India comes home, and brings a new job with it, only then will I call them a balanced trading partner.

        In college I majored in politics and played with computers. Now I work with computers and make politics a hobby.

        by rhonan on Mon Oct 18, 2010 at 03:25:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Balanced at the macroscopic level (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Phoenix Woman, Shockwave
          I am sorry to hear about your personal experience, but the argument I am making is at the aggregate/macroscopic level. Take a look at this data on trade deficits (charts  and data sources in my sigline):

          Sum of US trade deficits during 1999-2009

          Country Trade_Deficit ($ bn)

          Global    -5780.7

          China    -1786.0
          Europe    -908.4
          RoTW    -838.2
          Japan    -664.1
          Canada    -527.3
          Germany    -474.2
          Mexico    -466.7
          Africa    -372.2
          Italy    -181.8
          Taiwan    -146.4
          Korea    -119.6
          France    -116.5
          India    -87.8

          RoTW = "Rest of the World"

          So the US has had an accumulated trade deficit with the world of $5.8 trillion dollars during 1999-2009, $1.8 trillion (31% of total) of which was with China alone, while that with India was only $87.8 billion (1.5% of total). Which do you think contributed more, in fact a LOT more, to US jobs being shipped overseas? Between China and India, China by at least a 20x (=30/1.5) factor. Similarly for other countries in the list above that the US has had larger trade deficits with than it did with India.

          And what if the trade deficits, especially those with China, were brought down to zero. Surely, tons of jobs, as well as many segments of the manufacturing sector, would then return back to the US, and that would dramatically lower the unemployment rates significantly. That's my point.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site