Skip to main content

View Diary: Krugman: "The Competition Myth" (292 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Exactly right. You stop the race to the bottom by (18+ / 0-)

    forcing China and others to compete on our terms.  I would suggest using the money that comes in from the tariff to invest in American businesses.  The debate should be framed as part of a green jobs initiative and a "made in America" initiative.  Not necessarily demonizing a country or its exports to the US but celebrating American business and pursuing a new path forward based on green technology and new ways of doing things.  We sell the idea of a green revolution in the US as innovation that will put us in front when the future demands greener technology.  We do what we do best, innovate and create instead of trying to play by rules where we and any other non-emerging economy can't compete.

    •  Re Made in America/Buy American (15+ / 0-)

      Is America Too Corrupt To Keep Up?. . .
      Evidently, not within our own government. As "Buy China" policies now economically supercharge the world's most populous nation, the White House and congressional Republicans have opposed many of the very "Buy America" proposals that might help us keep up — and that obstruction has come at a steep price.

      Remember, Businessweek in 2008 warned that in an America with few domestic purchasing mandates, any economic stimulus — whether spending or tax cuts — would likely "leak" abroad, thus "reducing its impact on jobs here." When congressional Democrats responded in 2009 by trying to expand the meager "Buy America" regulations still on the books from the Great Depression, President Obama opposed the effort. He argued that targeting stimulus dollars at domestic investment would "send a protectionist message."
      [Bolding mine]
      . . .

      "As Bloomberg News reported during the stimulus negotiations, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce fiercely lobbied against the "Buy America" provisions when Congress debated them, just as the group lobbies against similar proposals today. That may seem strange coming from an organization whose name pays homage to this country. But don't be fooled: The chamber is a front group for huge multinational firms whose first priority is not this nation's economy, but a profit-maximizing business model based on exporting jobs and production facilities to low-wage countries abroad."

      David Sirota
      [Remember when we used to get his stuff? Thanks loads ****bots!]

      Read the entire essay (IMHO, a must read) at:

      Alito. Kennedy. Roberts. Scalia. Thomas.
      More important than ever: ERA NOW!

      by greeseyparrot on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 01:27:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Frame it as (7+ / 0-)

      You stop the race to the bottom by forcing China and others to compete on our terms

      a switch from exporting jobs to exporting American standards. Let our export to the world be a higher standard of living, a living wage, union protections for workers. Instead of scrapping OSHA and the EPA, let's export them to where they are desperately needed. Let's export the weekend, the 40 hour week, and an end to sweatshops, child labor, and slave labor.

      Let's export what's good about the American way of work, instead of exporting jobs and importing lower standards.

      Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

      by drewfromct on Mon Jan 24, 2011 at 05:20:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well done (4+ / 0-)

        That also resonates well with me for the hypocrisy I have witnessed for so many years as we tout our beacon of liberty myth while simultaneously overthrowing democratic regimes and replacing them with right wing dictators.

        Whenever I hear politicians proclaim that we are exporting freedom and democracy I want to puke. All we have exported for many decades is greed, corruption and hardship. A few minor exceptions noted.

      •  Bravo! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        drewfromct, pgm 01

        Exporting the values of a just and sustainable world sounds like a very good idea to me. The more so because, in order to do that, we would have to practice them here.

        Speaking of justice and sustainability, this line from Krugman provides something to think about IMHO:

        And we can’t all export more while importing less, unless we can find another planet to sell to.

        "Competitiveness" by definition implies that there are winners and losers. While I certainly don't want to see the US in the losers column, to be a winner means that one or more other countries must lose. Taking a planet-wide perspective, this is essentially an exercise in cost-shifting. Our own fortunes may improve, but on a whole-system basis, there is no increase in justice or well being.

        Also, "competitiveness" as a guiding philosophy provides strong incentives to maximize exploitation of resources. In the long run, it's not where we want to go.

    •  That still hurts the poor. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pgm 01

      What tarriffs would succeed in doing is spiking the price of every day manufactured goods significantly.

      We tried raising tarriffs during the Great Depression and it was a disaster.  Mind you, back then imports and exports were only a small part of our economy...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site