Skip to main content

Last week, when most politically involved Americans - elected and otherwise - and most of the media were understandably focused on health insurance reform, the American Manufacturing Organization and the Economic Policy Institute released a report, "Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs," written by Robert E. Scott.

Since Beijing joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, U.S. trade and the trade deficit with China have soared. The impact on American workers has been disturbing, particularly in electronic equipment and computers. Through the end of 2008, 2.4 million U.S. jobs have been "lost or displaced," 345,500 jobs a year. The hardest hit states are California, Texas and North Carolina, but the effect has been felt in every Congressional district.

Click here for the interactive version of the map.

What's to blame? According to the study, it's China's suppression of the value of its currency (the renminbi),  government policies that give Chinese businesses an unfair trade advantage, labor rights suppression, environmental degradation and subsidies of production of goods for export. None of those conclusions haven't been debated previously. But the heat's been rising, particularly with the U.S. job market still deep depressed. A correction of 41% appreciation of the renminbi against the dollar is needed to bring the two currencies into balance, the EPI report states.

"China's cheating is causing America to lose more than just the capacity to make widgets in the one-sided trade arrangements with China," said Scott Paul, executive director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, which helped finance the study. "Sophisticated electronics and high-tech products that once were made in the United States are increasingly being made in China instead."

Here are highlights of the study:

• The 2.4 million jobs lost/workers displaced nationwide since 2001 are distributed among all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, with the biggest losers, in numeric terms: California (370,000 jobs), Texas (193,700), New York (140,500), Illinois (105,500), Florida (101,600), Pennsylvania (95,700), North Carolina (95,100), Ohio (91,800), Georgia (78,100), and Massachusetts (72,800).

• The hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are New Hampshire (16,300, 2.35%), North Carolina (95,100, 2.30%), Massachusetts (72,800, 2.25%), California (370,000, 2.23%), Oregon (38,600, 2.19%), Minnesota (58,800, 2.17%), Rhode Island (10,600, 2.01%), Alabama (39,300, 1.97%), Idaho (13,500, 1.97%), and South Carolina (38,400, 1.97%).

• Rapidly growing imports of computer and electronic parts (including computers, parts, semiconductors, and audio-video equipment) accounted for more than 40% of the $186 billion increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2008. The $73 billion deficit in advanced technology products with China in 2008 was responsible for 27% of the total U.S.-China trade deficit. The growth of this deficit contributed to the elimination of 627,700 U.S. jobs in computer and electronic products in this period. ...

• The hardest-hit Congressional districts had large numbers of workers displaced by manufacturing trade, especially in computer and electronic parts, apparel, and durable goods manufacturing. The three hardest hit Congressional districts were all located in Silicon Valley in California, including the 15th (Santa Clara county, 26,900 jobs, 8.3% of all jobs in the district), the 14th (Palo Alto and nearby cities, 20,300 jobs, 6.3%), and the 16th (San Jose and other parts of Santa Clara county, 18,200 jobs, 6.0%).

Sens. Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown and Lindsey Graham have revived 2007 legislation that would require the Treasury Department to determine if currencies were misaligned against the dollar and make it easier to impose import duties to compensate for any misalignments. Two weeks ago, Brown said at a news conference: "President Obama has outlined a plan to double exports but you simply can’t do that if you don’t address the currency issue. China’s current policy is out-and-out protectionism."

Paul Krugman has said economic growth would run 1.5 percent more "if China stopped restraining the value of its currency and running trade surpluses." That's a view not shared by Shaun Rein of the China Market Research Group, a market intelligence firm. Even though Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao has said he does not think the yuan is undervalued, some Chinese leaders seem to believe otherwise. Why is this an issue now?

The debate is far from academic. In the coming weeks, the Obama administration faces a series of politically charged deadlines set by Congress to decide whether to continue negotiating with China over currency and trade issues or to take a more confrontational stance and name China a currency manipulator.

If the administration labels China a currency manipulator, it would face further Congressional pressure to impose punitive tariffs on many Chinese goods.

April 15 is a day of reckoning for many Americans who have waited to the last minute to deal with their taxes. This year it also marks the day when the Treasury Department will issue a report about whether China manipulates its currency "for purposes ... of gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade." The administration has twice before not made such a declaration when previous reports were released, but pressure is mounting to do so. Last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner got an earful from a panel of economists at a House Ways and Means Committee, one of them saying that if the U.S. didn't act on currency manipulation for diplomatic reasons it would be viewed as "wimps of the Western world."

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:00 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Protectionism doesn't work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weltshmertz

    I understand people's feelings but trying to blame others for our problems doesn't work.

    •  Right, in this case it is China doing it (10+ / 0-)

      China needs to change its policy.

      •  And, oddly, it IS working nt. (10+ / 0-)

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:07:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  China needs to change its political system (0+ / 0-)

        But that's not something we can control. We have our own problems and we need to focus on fixing them. Focusing on China is just a distraction. An trade war between China and US hurts both sides.

        •  Our problems are partly because of them. (4+ / 0-)

          Currency manipulation harms our ability to bounce back from this recession, and it has done so in the past as well.

          Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

          by Drew J Jones on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:26:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you mean our political system is great? (4+ / 0-)

          At the momement China is leading in wind turbine production, high speed trains, hybrid cars, solar panels etc. They spend ~300 billion on high speed trains alone. What are we proud off? 8 billion? Give me a break. And without Obama it would be zero. The US is hopelessly behind.  

          See, their political system with an elite is better able to respond to the challenges of our times. The Chinese elite is smart, rational and they do all they can to make sure that China will be a leader in the world.

          In contrast, we have nothing to show. The US is falling behind when it come to all key future technologies and the future economy.

          Lets at least reform the Senate. Stop redistricting. We need to reform our democracy if we want to remain a player in the world.

        •  Paul Krugman actually had an interesting article (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RobLewis, poxonyou, tari

          in which Americans had more to gain and the Chinese had more to lose on a confrontation on currency policy.

          It’s true that if China dumped its U.S. assets the value of the dollar would fall against other major currencies, such as the euro. But that would be a good thing for the United States, since it would make our goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. On the other hand, it would be a bad thing for China, which would suffer large losses on its dollar holdings. In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.

          http://www.nytimes.com/...

      •  have you noticed, by any chance, that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        claude, Brooke In Seattle, poxonyou

        it is AMERICAN-OWNED COMPANIES that have moved all "our" jobs to China, and that the Chinese government didn't hold a gun to Ford's head and say "build your factories here or else"?

        The reason why all our jobs have gone to China is simple----companies will ALWAYS go where the wages are cheapest. Always.  The only way we can stop our own companies from moving our own jobs to China is to raise the wages in China to match ours here, or lower our wages here to match those in China.  Which do we prefer?

        The whole "Buy American" strategy is based on the idiotic belief that Boss's patriotism is more important to him than his wallet.

        It's not.

        That's why Boss moved all our jobs to China in the first goddamn place.

        •  True, but what China is doing is too manipulate (0+ / 0-)

          the currency even beyond the effects your are describing to make the currency even cheaper. Yes, you are right, but we are not really picking up on this. What we object to is an artificial and deliberate lowering of a national currency.

          •  well, we did that for decades to the rest of the (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            claude, poxonyou

            world.  We even forced them to tie the value of their national currency to ours.

            Goose, say hello to gander.

            Odd, isn't it, that when we screw other nations, no one complains, but when other nations use our own methods to screw us, we all howl in righteous indignation.

            We're getting what we deserve.  We're no longer the top dog. We're a washed up economic has-been who can't even pay our own way through life anymore. The Chinese will now kick us around just like we kicked Europe around. Now we'll know what the Brits felt like in the 1950's.

            Get used to it.

      •  oh yes. let's build a big wall (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tari

        to keep those wily Chinese from coming over to America and stealing our jobs, yas, yas.

        Patriotic American corporations were powerless to prevent this theft of American jobs by evil foreigners.

        Let's send the Marines over there to get back our jobs, so US corporations can once again hire the Americans whose jobs were stolen by the wicked Chinese with their funny money.

        China must be STOPPED from ripping off our jobs.

        don't always believe what you think...

        by claude on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:08:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No worries - this is not what I am talking about (0+ / 0-)

          I am a supporter of free trade. I am concerned about the artificial lowering of a national currency at the expense of others. The same is true for Krugman if you read hig blog on the topic.

          I am working with many Chinese colleagues and they are great. And I welcome them. This is all good for us. See, it would be great if the US and China could find an agreement.

          •  perhaps you failed to appreciate that (0+ / 0-)

            I was being sarcastic and ironic, sometimes called "snark", to express my contempt for the corporations who have sold Americans' jobs down the river for some quick shareholder gains, and for the implication that somehow the Chinese are responsible for the problems we face in the US.

            don't always believe what you think...

            by claude on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:03:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Call it what you will, but rolling over and (11+ / 0-)

      playing dead doesn't work, either.

      If forced to choose between non-working strategies, I think I would look for one that doesn't leave a hostile (friend) nation owning my economy while millions of my own people are out of work.

      Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

      by dinotrac on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:07:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And, technically, "protectionism" (15+ / 0-)

        (what Friedmanites call an actual industrial policy) pretty well worked for us for a couple centuries, and is working quite well for our trading partners.

        I'd like to see the empirical evidence behind the oft-regurgitated claims that protectionism doesn't "work".

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:11:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not a fan of heavy-handed protectionism. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jds1978

          Trade is a great thing that tends to raise all boats, but...
          not always and not under every circumstance.

          The Chinese are undercutting the world, and doing it on the backs of many of their own people.

          Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

          by dinotrac on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:15:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Trade only raises all boats (6+ / 0-)

            if it's conducted on level seas.

            It's one thing to talk about shutting out foreign products (well, no one really does, except as strawmen).

            It's another to advocate tariffs designed to largely compensate for differences in local labor markets and the degree of externalities permitted in the respective countries.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:18:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And let's not forget the heavy-handed Chinese (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              esquimaux, Robobagpiper

              government involvement and intrusions into trade, including the requirement for "joint ventures".

              Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

              by dinotrac on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:42:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Right. I don't advocate restricting trade (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dinotrac

                specifically to protect particular industries (like many of our trading partners do).

                I have confidence that - with an equalization of labor costs and externalities via tariffs - that American productivity could make us rival anyone in the world in manufactured goods, in any sector.

                But without that equalization, we will always lose out to cheap imported crap.

                Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:52:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do favor protecting particular industries (0+ / 0-)

                  if they're fragile, and can be built up into strong industries through that protection.

                  Have you read Ha-Joon Cheng's book on protectionism?  He argues that yes, protectionism worked quite well for what are now the developed nations, which then "pulled away the ladder" and forbade developing nations from using the same measures (e.g., through the IMF, when bail-out loans have been made).

                  "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

                  by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:17:51 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  What are you talking about? (6+ / 0-)

      The US has long had a protectionist economy. Ever hear about the isolationists? The tariffs? Even for NAFTA, the US is still relatively closed on some fronts.

      I miss Johnny Rook and Ormond Otvos.

      by Nulwee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:15:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The diary wasn't very explicit (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sui Juris, nobody at all

      that the low renminbi causes their exports to rise. It's causality at play. Our high dollar causes us to import.

      The populists waxing nostalgic about the days when we just produced everything ourselves and didn't use so much credit are imbuing everything with their obvious, truthy values. We need to build an economy based on facts not sentiments.

      I miss Johnny Rook and Ormond Otvos.

      by Nulwee on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:17:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's shift from the dollar (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        esquimaux, thethinveil, UtopianPablo

        issue to environmental and labor issues.  Does manufacturing without any protection for either labor or the environment raise all boats?

      •  Well, the value of the US Dollar has (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Villagejonesy

        been in a state of steady decline for about the past 8 years, dropping about 25% during the period. Ask yourselves - in the past 8 years has our economic situation improved or has it gotten worse?

        According to some people's ideas here things should have improved and we should be exporting more. If we omit military hardware from the equation our exports have dwindled significantly.

        IIRC I recently read that our exports decreased 17% last year. The value of the USD was in decline during this period and continues its downward trend.

        We are on the cusp of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire... Chalmers Johnson

        by truong son traveler on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:23:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          I hear this floated with regard to the Euro's recent weakening, as well, that it must necessarily benefit manufacturers.  But we must admit that the US Dollar's value, while it may be important, isn't the sole driver of the loss of manufacturing jobs here in the States.

          I think that the revolution in transport and communications that has allowed offshoring of jobs and factories came so gradually that people didn't recognize it as a revolution.  But think about the shift away from local production that's happened over the last half-century.  That seems a very important development in the loss of American manufacturing.

          "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

          by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:23:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What, (3+ / 0-)

      We could lose all the jobs the free market has trickled our way?

      and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

      by le sequoit on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:34:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  what protectionism? (3+ / 0-)

      Seriously, where do you get this from?

      The whole point is China manipulating its currency for the sake of having an unfair advantage.  This has been going on for years.  China allowed the currency to move but only at its command and has controlled it completely.

      Yes, we need trade.  But make it fair on all sides.

      Time for talk is over.  Force China to allow the currency to move.

      "The only person sure of himself is the man who wishes to leave things as they are, and he dreams of an impossibility" -George M. Wrong.

      by statsone on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:54:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Trade shouldn't be a one way street (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Brooke In Seattle

      "These old Wall Street boys are putting up an awful fight to keep the government from putting a cop on their corner." - Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:08:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Protectionism works very well actually (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, esquimaux

      Anyone who tries to plead and beg the Chinese to take any action at all is a sniveling crybaby.  We can place a tariff on goods from China any time we want and our failure to do so is OUR own fault.  I have yet to se ANY logic or rationale that would justify the current butt kissing that  we are doing with China or anyone else.

      This country currently lacks for oil.  That is just about the end of our dependence on any other sovereign nation and we can negotiate with suppliers in this hemisphere and control our ridiculous waste of oil and the entire world will benefit from it.

      Whining about the Chinese is a ridiculous exercise.

      "I know no safe depository for the ultimate power of society but the people themselves" -- Jefferson

      by TheTrucker on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:54:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no we can't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poxonyou

        We can place a tariff on goods from China any time we want

        Such things are illegal now, thanks to the WTO  structure that we ourselves set up to allow us to more effectively screw other nations.  

        Now, of course, the Chinese are using our own structure to screw us.

        I say more power to 'em.  It's about time somebody knocked us off our high horse.

        Though I wish it weren't a one-party police state that is doing it.

        •  I got yer "illegal" (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          djMikulec

          We will do the tariffs and see if the sheriff shows up.  I am not real sure how you think the WTO is going to enforce anything.  As you attempt to answer that question I will have a field day showing you that whatever happens at the WTO or anywhere else, we will win.

          "I know no safe depository for the ultimate power of society but the people themselves" -- Jefferson

          by TheTrucker on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:11:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  China is the protectionist (0+ / 0-)

      China intervenes in currency markets every day to support the value of the yuan (renmenbi).  By keeping its value low, China is subsidizing its exports, applying a tax on its imports (equivalent to the level of undervaluation) and is providing a subsidy for foreign direct investment thus accounting for why corporations move manufacturing to China.  Let's not forget who is the problem here.

    •  Really? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      esquimaux, poxonyou, Villagejonesy

      Read the books by Oxford economist Ha-Joon Chang, like "Kicking Away The Ladder." He documents the fact that, like other great industrial powers, the U.S. practiced blatant protectionism to build its industrial base. Then, once we were on top, we lectured developing countries like South Korea about the "evils" of protectionism.

      Or listen to Thom Hartmann talk about why we need tariffs.

      I'm afraid your argument is just a GOP talking point that's been repeated so often that many people believe it.

      What is valued is practiced. What is not valued is not practiced. -- Plato

      by RobLewis on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:02:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, funny--I just cited Cheng's book too (0+ / 0-)

        see above posts.  Or, not so funny, I guess--he's the natural go-to for this subject.  But I think he demonstrated his points in that book very well.

        "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

        by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:26:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  OK, I'll buy that. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Villagejonesy

      Now prove this: that free trade works.

      For that matter, define "works"...

      Here's the problem. Both protectionism and free trade are adopted by most of their supporters as brain-dead panaceas.

      This is a lot like the dueling notions that government spending is an effective stimulant to the economy on the one hand, and on the other that government spending detracts from private spending that is a better stimulus to the economy.  Why should we expect that government spending have the same economic effect during a private sector economic boom that it has during a recession, and  vice versa?

      These are almost religious notions. If we just appease the god of Free Trade, everyone wins; if we sacrifice to the demon of protectionism, our country is doomed.  It seems to me a reasonable argument that under a case where everybody plays fair, in the long term free trade maximizes prosperity all around.  But people anxious to break down free trade barriers aren't thinking long term. They're thinking about making a big buck by salary and exchange rate arbitrage over the next several years.

      Under rapid, uncontrolled liberalization, people who are capable of benefiting from arbitrage make a killing -- not because they're better more virtuous people, but because they have assets easy to move across borders.  People who make money from work lose.   Some day, generations from now, when the salaries in India have risen to that of the US (or US has fallen to that of India), the descendants of US workers will benefit from free trade too.  In the meantime, free trade has made goods cheap (in more than one sense), and the damage to the middle class has been masked by a housing bubble.

      This is like what we were taught about the enclosure movement -- that in the long term it benefited the people whose traditional rights were legislated out of existence.  That's true only as a class.  The individuals who starved, were forced into debtors prison, or to watch their children turn to crime and prostitution in order to eat didn't benefit.

      But they could have.  There was no reason that the wealth landowners had to reap all the benefits and the people dependent on the commons have to bear all the costs.  Perhaps the transformation would have taken longer, but more people would have survived to enjoy that transformation.

      Likewise the decision to liberalize trade, not over a generation, but over a decade puts all the fast profits in one place and the risk in another.  It doesn't have to be that way, but if there were any effort to do this in an ethical way the enthusiasm for free trade would be a lot less.

      I've lost my faith in nihilism

      by grumpynerd on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:39:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice (0+ / 0-)

        In addition to the arguments mentioned in the Cheng book for the benefits of protectionism, I've been arguing for some time that "free trade" or a "free market" is inherently oxymoronic.  If a "free market" means in part "a market not distorted to favor any special interest," then what happens once a prosperous class develops?  They immediately set to distorting the free market, by bribing policymakers so as to benefit their own special interests.  There is no such thing as a "free market," and never can be.

        "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

        by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:32:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Completely disagree: protectionism DOES work (0+ / 0-)

      I agree with the poster below who said "oddly, it IS working."  Ha-Joon Cheng, a Cambridge economist, wrote a book about the ways that developed nations built up their own economies through protective measures like tariffs, but then "pulling up the ladder" once they'd become fully developed, by denying developing economies the chance to do the same thing, e.g., when IMF loans are made, protectionist measures are forbidden.  But protectionist measures do work.

      I agree with Shaun Rein's article above, that screaming for currency appreciation is a lunkheaded thing to do.  It won't solve our problems, will cause problems since, as he points out, our companies are the ones profiting when so many of our manufactures are made there, and the Chinese themselves only realize a fraction of the profits on items they make for American manufacturers.

      The "get tough or look like wimps" dichotomy ignores the fact that the currency appreciation is a red herring, that won't solve the problems in US manufacturing that it purports to solve.

      "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

      by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 12:13:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure who it is we think we are protecting (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        claude, poxonyou

        Are we protecting American companies?  Hell, they ARE the ones in China who are making all the cheap imports.

        What on earth makes any of us think that they would support higher tarriffs to keep their cheap "imported" good out . . . ?  Why the heck would Ford or WalMart want the goods that it makes in China to become more expensive here?

        All those "American companies" that we think we are "protecting", don't WANT that protection.  They WANT to be able to import cheap low-wage super-high-profit stuff from China.  They DON'T want good-wage jobs in plants here--that's why they moved to China in the FIRST place.

        Are we all REALLY so naive as to think that American companies are in business so they can give good-paying jobs to good American citizens . . . ?

        Wow.

        •  I and the poster I mentioned were speaking of (0+ / 0-)

          China's protectionism, not America's.

          "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

          by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:34:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  turnabout is fair play (shrug) (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poxonyou

            We screwed the world for fifty years.

            Now the world is finally strong enough to start screwing back, and we don't like it.

            The oddest part, though, is that both "protectionisms" "protect" the very same people. Chinese protectionism is also everyone else's protectionism, since most of the stuff made in China is owned by somebody else, and those "somebody else" are entirely happy to have China help them make massive profits by keeping their costs down and their prices low.

            Just ask Ford if they want the US to make the cars that they manufacture in China to become more expensive here by tacking on tariffs. Then ask Ford if they want China to help them make the cars that Ford manufactures in China cheaper to sell in the US by manipulating their currency.

            I bet I can guess Ford's answers to both questions . . . . .

            •  Well sure, and no argument there (0+ / 0-)

              I also think that any "protection" enacted is usually just the sort of political distortion, to protect the interests of a moneyed elite, that I spoke of earlier.  This is why the "free market" is an oxymoron.  Whether it's forcing other countries to drop their protective measures, or enacting our own, the goal is to distort the market in order to benefit this moneyed elite, not to "level the playing field."

              "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

              by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:58:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  but the difference now is (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poxonyou, Villagejonesy

                that the "moneyed elite" is no longer "American" or "Japanese" or "German" or "British" -- it's now INTERNATIONAL.  They all own big chunks of each other, and it's utterly impossible to separate them.  They are now one unified entity. After all, the people who benefit most from Chinese protectionism are the American, Japanese and European corporados who own most of the factories in China. Tariffs that keep out cheap Chinese imports are pointless when it's us who owns the places in China that make them.

                Protectionism can only work when it protects a national industry.  

                There ARE NO national industries anymore.

                (shrug)

                •  Again, no argument there (0+ / 0-)

                  The argument that

                  the people who benefit most from Chinese protectionism are the American, Japanese and European corporados who own most of the factories in China.

                  is one of the arguments that Shaun Rein's article in Forbes, which the diarist linked to, is making; I agree with him, and with your post.

                  "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

                  by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:30:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Though I'm not sure (0+ / 0-)

                  whether foreign owners own "most" of the factories in China; I was under the impression that most factories in China were Chinese-owned, and were financed by Chinese banks.

                  "Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar, and are often convincing." -- Oscar Wilde

                  by Villagejonesy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:34:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  most are joint ventures (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Villagejonesy

                    the Chinese government usually owns 51% and the "foreigner company" usually owns 49%.

                    But that has been recently changed to allow majority foreign ownership.

                    That is as it applies to foreign holdings in China.  I am sure that "most factories" in Chin a are indeed wholly owned by Chinese -- but they are so piddly and small that they simply don't matter in the scheme of things.

    •  you're right, Protectionism does not work (0+ / 0-)

      Which is why the United States should pass the bill and get the U.S. Treasury to label China a currency manipulator, for that's what their Yuan peg is, Protectionism, for the Chinese.  

  •  Thank you, China, but I'm (7+ / 0-)

    not enjoying the free time.

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:05:48 AM PDT

  •  I hope the Treasury steps up to the plate. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, RadicalRoadRat

    We need to address this issue.  If Pres. Obama wants to meet the goals he set in increased exports, this is a HUGE step towards getting there.

  •  And the purchasing agents for our (4+ / 0-)

    retailers are?  And the manufacturers who import parts from China are?  And the shippers who organize the transport are?

    Somehow, I don't think the Chinese stow-aways who end up in the kitchens of Chinese restaurants all over the country are negotiating trade deals on the side.

    If you don't want Chinese manufactures, don't buy them.  

    http://www.youtube.com/cyprespond

    by hannah on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:06:09 AM PDT

  •  Brother, can you spare a yuan? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lefty Coaster, judyms9

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:07:36 AM PDT

  •  These numbers assume China will continue (0+ / 0-)

    this growth rate.  The Chinese growth bubble can't last.

    Clings to Music and Yankee Spring Training

    by Mro on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:08:19 AM PDT

  •  the US is just a bit hypocritcal (13+ / 0-)

    our farm subsidies and import quotas hurt farmers in poorer countries and their economies

    "The American people are on the march once more, and they will not stop until quality, affordable health care is the birthright of every American" - Teddy, 7/19

    by distraught on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:09:54 AM PDT

  •  Free Market (3+ / 0-)

    But our free market is what will make us great, If our manufacturers can make things cheaper in other countries and sell it to us, even though the jobs to make money are now in other countries,,,,,

    oh wait ...

    somewhere there's a failure in the free market system.

    oh. I get it keep the jobs here so we can buy things.

    I know its not that simple.

    snark.

    Caution the light at the end of the tunnel is now an on coming train

    by rageagnstmach on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:10:48 AM PDT

    •  Keep the jobs here and (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler, Eposter

      the things will be more expensive and the average consumer still won't be able to buy them.

      This is a failure of the U.S. economy within the free market, not a failure of China or of regulation. The Chinese have been willing to work harder for less, and the Americans have been willing to buy more for less now at the expense of being able to afford less in the future.

      To change this dynamic, Americans will have to be willing to work harder for less and to buy less now in order to afford more in the future. A social safety net that makes Americans less cost-focused and consumption-focused would also help to alter this dynamic.

      Regulation, however, won't change a thing; others will have access to cheap Chinese goods and labor, and American citizens and companies won't have either. We'll be less competitive and less well off in relation to others, not more.

      And our economies are now so entertwined that even if we managed to cause Chinese markets to suffer a little, American companies and workers would also feel the pain as both struggled to rebalance their books without the advantages the Chinese market offers.

      -9.63, 0.00
      I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

      by nobody at all on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:17:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The average consumer doesn't (6+ / 0-)

        actually need most of what is being purchased.  A consumer-based economy is in trouble, without evening looking to China for the culprit.

      •  Perhaps if we gave you total control (4+ / 0-)

        over our economic decisions, you could enact and enforce these needed changes, just like China.  And while you're at it, you could ignore environmental concerns and workers rights.  I believe there would be narrow economic benefits to such a system as China is demonstrating.

        But a couple of objections--I believe environmental costs should be included in the costs of products.  I believe workers should have rights and participate in decision-making at their companies. Germany has proved this works just fine.  Finally, I'm attached to political freedom.

        The falsifications and fictions that are ruling us have become life-threatening.

        by geomoo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:35:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You want political freedom (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          truong son traveler

          except you also want to dictate Chinese economic and domestic policy to them.

          What in fact most Americans (and DailyKos posters) want is a particular stable relationship of political influence wealth between the U.S. and China, which they'll then arbitrarily call "fair" and "free."

          What's really upsetting to Americans isn't any particular idea of freedom or fairness so much as the fact that the Chinese are exercising Chinese sovereignty and are able to do so on the strength of their own economic position.

          This doesn't sit well with imperialist/colonialist ideas about the "normal" relationships between the west and the rest of the world, economic, political, or otherwise.

          -9.63, 0.00
          I am not a purity troll. I am a purity warrior.

          by nobody at all on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:46:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Odd double standard (3+ / 0-)

            The Chinese can do whatever they want with their currency, but we are somehow "dictating" to the Chinese if we choose to voluntarily raise the price of the products we buy for them.  This seems a simple exercise of our sovereignty in furtherance of our own best interests in a competitive relationship.  The Chinese seem to understand the basic fact of this competition better than we.  They have armies of young folks fired up and ready to "correct" any negative views of China found on the internet.  One must always question whether defenses of China come from that quarter.  In any case, I can tell you the program is effective.  One would be hard pressed to find a criticism of China on the internet without encountering an almost immediate defense.  I know that's only exercising their sovereign internet right an all, but that doesn't mean we have to shut up about it, nor does it mean we can't develop a response.

            The falsifications and fictions that are ruling us have become life-threatening.

            by geomoo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  offhand, I would guess that (4+ / 0-)

              most of the opposition to American tariffs on Chinese-manufactured imports comes from the AMERICAN COMPANIES who own much of those Chinese manufacturing plants, and who LIKE being able to sell their low-wage high-profit stuff in the US as cheaply as possible. Just ask WalMart or GM if THEY want tariffs to raise prices on the Chinese plants that they own.

              "Protectionism" only works if it's OUR industries that are being "protected".  But, as I'm sure GM or WalMArt would be happy to point out, Chinese protectionism protects AMERICAN companies, while American protectionism HURTS those very same American companies.

              This isn't the 80's anymore, when Toyotas were made in Japan and Fords were made in Detroit. We have a global economy now.  National economies no longer exist. And there's no way to "protect" something which no longer exists.

              There's not much point in "protecting" American companies from Chinese products when it's American companies themselves who are moving in droves to MAKE those products in China.

      •  alas, you are right (4+ / 0-)

        There is no such thing anymore as "the Chinese economy" or "the American economy".  We live in a global economy where nation-states simply don't matter anymore.

        Blaming "the Chinese" for "our" jobs moving there, is pretty idiotic when it is AMERICAN-OWNED COMPANIES that are doing all the moving.

        The corporados will always go where wages are cheapest.  Always. No matter what.

        There are only two ways for the US to prevent that.  Either we (1) raise their wages to match ours or (2) lower our wages to match theirs.

        Which do we prefer?

        Appealing to the "patriotism" of American companies, or American consumers, is useless.  When it comes to their patriotism or their wallets, their wallets win every time. (shrug)

        That's why "Buy American" campaigns have failed utterly, every time.

  •  you know, from a purely free-market standpoint (10+ / 0-)

    what China is doing is hardly "cheating."

    I find it fascinating that the biggest free-marketers cry foul when someone actually uses the "free-market" to benefit themselves.

    (not a free-marketer here. Just pointing out my amusement.)

    BlackKos Tu/Fri. eggs, brd, milk.

    by terrypinder on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:11:01 AM PDT

    •  China's definitely not cheating (9+ / 0-)

      It's pursuing an industrial policy in its own self-interest.

      Good for them. And so should we.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:12:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  exactly (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aisling, Robobagpiper, annieli

        I agree 100%.

        I certainly acknowledge we're a global market and on some levels, we've always been. But it's time we acted in our own self-interest. Unfortunately, we're up against the John Stossels of the world who say "pay the bankers millions or they'll leave for Singapore."

        BlackKos Tu/Fri. eggs, brd, milk.

        by terrypinder on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:19:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let them leave for Singapore (6+ / 0-)

          Tax their expatriated wealth at 90% and good riddance.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:20:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  so say we all! (3+ / 0-)

            BlackKos Tu/Fri. eggs, brd, milk.

            by terrypinder on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:21:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  well of course that's what we're all complaining (0+ / 0-)

            about.  After all, back when the auto companies were yelling "give us wage cuts or we'll leave !!!!!" -- they left.  They're in Mexico and China now.

            And here we all are, bitching about it and wondering where all our jobs went . . . . . . .  . . . .

            Didn't turn out to be such a "good riddance" after all.

            •  You missed the part where I proposed (0+ / 0-)

              we tax their expatriated wealth.

              They moved jobs elsewhere because the tax/tariff code made it beneficial to do so. If we had taxed imported goods accounting for the difference in labor markets and externalities, they would have not moved those manufacturing jobs, as there would have not been any incentive to do so.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:10:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  that won't help (0+ / 0-)

                They won't care.  Unless you tax repatriated profits at a much higher rate than domestic profits (and you'll have one hell of a hard time telling one from the other, since so many domestic companies are owned by foreign ones and vice versa), then it's STILL cheaper and more profitable for comapnies to move the jobs where the wages are lowest.

                They moved jobs elsewhere because the tax/tariff code made it beneficial to do so

                Not true at all.  They moved their plants to Mexicxo and China because they can pay people one-tenth what they can here, and make more profits than they ever dreamed possible.

                If we had taxed imported goods accounting for the difference in labor markets and externalities, they would have not moved those manufacturing jobs, as there would have not been any incentive to do so.

                well, good luck with that.  I won't hold my breath waiting.

                And I'm curious about what you plan to do with all the cheap imported stuff that comes from Japanese or German-owned factories in China, which you can't tax at all . . . . . .

                •  You're missing the point of wage-market (0+ / 0-)

                  equalling, which is unfortunate, since it was a key component of our tariff regime for a century or so.

                  If it takes $0.20 worth of labor to make in Mexico, and $0.05 worth of labor to make in China, to make what it takes $1.00 worth of labor to make in the US, you slap a $0.80 cent tariff on the Mexican product, and a $0.95 tariff on the Chinese product to level the playing field.

                  Same goes for costs of environmental regulations. It is entirely possible to level the playing field between our markets and theirs.

                  We have simply chosen, thanks to the ideology of the Chicago School of Economics, not to.

                  Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

                  by Robobagpiper on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 03:21:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  alas, it still doesn't work (0+ / 0-)

                    If it takes $0.20 worth of labor to make in Mexico, and $0.05 worth of labor to make in China, to make what it takes $1.00 worth of labor to make in the US, you slap a $0.80 cent tariff on the Mexican product, and a $0.95 tariff on the Chinese product to level the playing field.

                    Meanwhile, since the company doesn't pay the tariff, the consumer does, you have not hurt their profits in the slightest, and indeed have helped them increase their profits, since they still make more profit on a  cheaply-produced Chinese gizmo than they would on the same gizmo made in Philadelphia or San Francisco. You're making the consumer pay more for it thanks to the tariff, but not the company.

                    So the company continues to make lots and lots of money by outsourcing its jobs, at least until the WTO comes in, declares the whole tariff "restraint of free trade" thingie illegal, and the game is over.  (shrug)

                    What you propose helps American COMPANIES (the few of them that haven't already moved to China) but hurts American WORKERS, by (1) not raising their wages, and (2) forcing them to pay more for a product that they could be getting cheaper (thus lowering their real wages even further), and also hurts workers in China and Mexico and wherever, by not raising their wages at all (and not decreasing the company profits made from their low wages).

                    How is any of that a good thing?

                    Here's a better idea for equalizing wages --- EQUALIZE THE FUCKING WAGES.  Organize workers in China, Mexico, India, Somalia or wherever so they make the same as we do.

                    That helps EVERYONE (except the company profits, and I have no interest in helping those).

                    We have simply chosen, thanks to the ideology of American nationalism (we're better than they are so who cares what happens to them) not to.  And now we're paying the price for it. Literally.

        •  Feh (3+ / 0-)

          What's the bad news?

    •  Exactly. (5+ / 0-)

      China is acting to enhance and serve Chinese interests.
      It's about time America did the same.

      You cannot present a monster with a flower. Nora Astorga.

      by vivens fons on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:17:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  there are NO ruleless markets, ALL markets have (5+ / 0-)

      rules. look at illegal markets - go right and try f'king around on the hand shake with the russian mob or the mexican drug lords or the columbian drug guys or the mafia ...

      compared to the rigging of the markets which happens in Washington D.C., rigging whihc PURPOSELY fucks over American workers,

      yawn on the currency rigging.

      rmm.

      Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

      by seabos84 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:18:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is the price of BushCo wars. (0+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:12:09 AM PDT

  •  A Handy Distraction from reams of shitty u.s. law (6+ / 0-)

    made by our corrupt thugs and semi corrupt dems with the collusion of a segment of the ruling class which is COMPLETELY corrupt.

    I do NOT doubt that this issue is important - however, given decades of phil grams and naftas, of aristo-fascists and craven sell out DLCers, I'm suspicous about how we all gotta get our undies in a bunch over those perfidous for-un-ers.  

    rmm.

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:14:38 AM PDT

  •  Long before currency manipulations were an issue (10+ / 0-)

    the US was enabling companies to export their operations.  Remember how "high tech" was going to revitalize the economy in the 80s?  Remember Atari?   They moved offshore as quickly as they could.  All the other manufacturers followed suit.  When the PC boom hit where did all those circuit boards start coming from?  El Salvador, Phillipines, Taiwan, Thailand, etc.

    Then we had "that big sucking sound to the South" as Perot so aptly called it.  

    Play with currency all one wants, restoring the manufacturing base is going to take a whole lot more than realigning currencies.  China is developing a domestic market in addition to other national markets.  They will exploit those long before they devalue their currency by 40%

    •  Currency manipulation is just one ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      island in alabama

      ...piece of dealing with China's mercantilist policies. This is a necessary policy, but it's not sufficient. For that we need appreciation of the renminbi, but we also need an industrial policy - like the Germans have and like the Chinese have. The fact the U.S. doesn't have one is a huge and long-standing problem. It's one reason both those countries are ahead of the U.S. in green energy manufacturing and installations.

      I refuse to accept "no can do" as a proper slogan for progressives.

      by Meteor Blades on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:19:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent analysis, Meteor Blades. (0+ / 0-)

    This is a bit over my head so I'm going to reread and mull it over for awhile.

    They're like the Inspector Clouseaus' of the blogging world.

    by Pager on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:19:46 AM PDT

  •  chinese goverment cheat? Gedoudda here! (0+ / 0-)

    given that their guv'ment is barely 60 years old, trying to hold together a country that has rarely ever been "one," why would anyone think hanky panky was afoot?.....

    Never walk into a public restroom while breathing through your mouth.

    by quityurkidding on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:20:31 AM PDT

    •  while china's historical unity has been oversold (5+ / 0-)

      it's strains credulity to say that "it's a country that has rarely ever been 'one.'" unless your point is about tibet, xinjiang, taiwan and mongolia not being a historically consistent part of china (which is a fair enough point), the fact of the matter is that china proper (the eastern half of the country with the vast majority of the people) has a longer history of unified government than the vast number of nation-states currently in existence. the last extended period of division (meaning more than a couple decades) was a thousand years ago, and even then most of the provinces and local government units remained surprisingly constant during division.

      surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

      by wu ming on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:37:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the chinese premier is wen JIAbao (5+ / 0-)

    there's a syllable missing. the US would do well to make a coordinated effort to pressure china on its exchange rate with other producers who are at a disadvantage, instead of making it a US-china spat, in much the same way any anti-carbon emissions strategy should pressure them. the appearance would be rather different if developing countries and china's asian manufacturing rivals are all calling for a revaluation.

    surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

    by wu ming on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:26:34 AM PDT

  •  There's unemployment in Texas? (4+ / 0-)

    Why, that's unpossible!

    My governor, Rick Perry, goes on TV all the time and says the economic meltdown skipped Texas and we don't need no stinkin' unemployment money from the feds.

    Just go find a job! They are everywhere!

    (And anyone who knows me or has ever read a comment of mine must surely know that this one is leavened with a heavy bit of snark.)

    When are we going to get a real jobs bill? One that directly hires people and stops pretending that tax cuts for businesses make them hire if there are no customers?

    "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

    by Brooke In Seattle on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:29:38 AM PDT

    •  Agree. And agree. And agree. (2+ / 0-)

      Our beloved Governor Good-hair and such minions of his as Kay Granger (who wants millions from the government to do her pet Trinity River makeover, the one largely run by her son) have made their disdain for government money so, so obvious.

      And their bragging about funding this and that and not mentioning that the feds are largely picking up the tab is so, so sickening.

      I also love the unending Repug mantra about tax cuts as the cure-all for the loss of jobs.

      BrookeInSeattle, you are have stated the obvious. (Which never occurs to Republicans.) You can eliminate taxes on a small business...but if no one's buying hamburgers, that joint still ain't gonna hire cooks.

  •  In the past 2 or 3 years, China (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wu ming, nobody at all

    has lost WAY more manufacturing jobs than the US.

    That doesn't really set the stage for a conducive environment to ask them to adopt policies that will cause them to lose even more factory jobs . . .

  •  Krugman Op-Ed worth reading (4+ / 0-)

    If Treasury does find Chinese currency manipulation, then what? Here, we have to get past a common misunderstanding: the view that the Chinese have us over a barrel, because we don’t dare provoke China into dumping its dollar assets.

    What you have to ask is, What would happen if China tried to sell a large share of its U.S. assets? Would interest rates soar? Short-term U.S. interest rates wouldn’t change: they’re being kept near zero by the Fed, which won’t raise rates until the unemployment rate comes down. Long-term rates might rise slightly, but they’re mainly determined by market expectations of future short-term rates. Also, the Fed could offset any interest-rate impact of a Chinese pullback by expanding its own purchases of long-term bonds.

    It’s true that if China dumped its U.S. assets the value of the dollar would fall against other major currencies, such as the euro. But that would be a good thing for the United States, since it would make our goods more competitive and reduce our trade deficit. On the other hand, it would be a bad thing for China, which would suffer large losses on its dollar holdings. In short, right now America has China over a barrel, not the other way around.

    http://www.nytimes.com/...

    There's no reason to fear China.  Hopefully they will understand depressing our economy does not help there's, which is so export dependent on us buying their goods.

  •  Flawed study (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nobody at all, xgz

    This has a few glaring flaws.  The first of which is somewhat nitpicky, but it is something we always go after the right for so it should apply here as well, and that is the study was financed by a group looking for a specific conclusion and thus the "researcher" had to find data to fit his "goal".

    The second big flaw here is the use of dollars as the comparison for job loss/creation.  This has a huge problem, as if one can produce more stuff per dollar in China, then the equation isn't equal (ie if $1 million produces 50 widgets here, but 150 widgets in China, then the comparison is shot because the volumes are not equal).  This essentially captures the big issue with China trade.  That while some industries are not benefiting domestically, the vast majority of us are (through a higher standard of living, lower inflation, and lower interest rates).  A big reason why the US isn't going after China with guns blazing is that many non-biased economists are able to recognize the benefits to the US of the China trade relationship and realize that because we are running a huge deficit (that's budget) every year (and every year for the estimated future) we are going to need someone to help offset interest rates and inflation.  

  •  we should all get on our iPhones (0+ / 0-)

    and call somebody about this.

    and I wait for them to interrupt my drinking from this broken cup

    by le sequoit on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:37:25 AM PDT

    •  This comment is unrelated. (0+ / 0-)

      I would like to interrupt this comment thread in order to reference your advice on filling out a Tourney bracket from a couple weeks ago..

      Worst.  

      Advice.

      EVAH!

      "To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well." Justice Robert Jackson, Chief Prosecutor, Nuremberg.

      by Wayward Son on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:55:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Look at how quickly you all turn Libertarian! (0+ / 0-)

    Currency "manipulation"? All China did was to peg their currency to the US Dollar and not allow it to fluctuate. You don't have to call that "manipulation" - a word that suggests some impropriety.

    All it is is a government intervention in the market for the benefit of a domestic economy. Only Libertarians think that such things are automatically improper. Everybody else, including Republicans are all for government interventions in the market. I certainly am.

    Here is an intervention which benefits China and (in some ways) hurts us. Yeah, it's sad. But I don't see what's improper about the policy. To me it seems like the clever thing to do.

  •  Adust currency or punitive tarriffs either way (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nobody at all

    prices for many things are going to go up a lot and your savings will be worth less and less.

    Support good reform not a political party blindly.

    by Eposter on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:39:22 AM PDT

  •  This debate seems to me to be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    truong son traveler, annieli

    a symptom of the fact that our present global financial systems are badly in need of structural reform. The system that was established at Bretton Woods at the end of WWII fell apart in the 70s. Since then it has been a matter of playing cat and mouse games on the part of all major nations.  

  •  This analysis seems to completely ignore (5+ / 0-)

    that Germany has been able to maintain a manufacturing base when confronted with the same "threat" from China.

    Perhaps we'd do well to take a look at ourselves, and not blame others for our woes so much.

    •  Somebody has to buy something to make (0+ / 0-)

      the global economy work.  The only way that is possible is if we pay accordingly high wages.  We can't do that adopting Chinese or German austerity policies.

      •  This is what I'm talking about (7+ / 0-)

        The German Co-determination Laws that give workers representation on management boards.

        In which case management cannot secretly meet and decide to make a profitable company a tad (let's say 5%) more profitable by closing down domestic manufacturing and moving it all to Asia.  

        Basically, in most cases, employee input keeps manufacturing at home.

        •  Okay that's a policy designed to help (0+ / 0-)

          tariffs are another.  But we can't do nothing - the world won't balance that way.

        •  German manufacturing (4+ / 0-)

          And its success in maintaining a strong manufacturing base blows a lot of right-wing talking points about environmental laws, taxes, etc. driving companies away, out of the water.

          How Germany has maintained both its manufacturing base, while not dropping wages or benefits is something more Americans need to become cognizant about.

          •  Right wing? (0+ / 0-)

            I am the right wing now wanting America to do something sensible with their trade policy?  Meteor Blades and Krugman are the right wing?

            I really don't understand this knee jerk protect the corporations attitude.

            •  What I think this reflects... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              disrael

              Is the compulsion of so many US "left" and "progressive" elements to establish their own anti-communist credentials.

              What people need to recognize is that, just as the "communist" countries have so successfully emulated us, we need to emulate them, in many regards.

              This is NOT about making the US "like" Russia or China, or Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, et al, heh...

              It's about rational planning and implementation, in the public interest, which can only be determined democratically...instead of the present chaos, soley for the private profit of anti-democratic monopoly corporate fascist pigs, against the public interest.

              "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

              by Radical def on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:00:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I have to disagree (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Radical def

                I think it's about "the American left" (such as it is) being every bit as nationalistic as "the American right". The US is a declining "world power", and neither wing wants to admit that. Both of us still want to be able to chant "USA! USA!" Even the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the New American Century just as enthusiastically as the Repugs have, to try to halt our inevitable decline.

                It's a pipe dream.  We're not top dog anymore, and when we say "shit" the rest of the world no longer breathlessly asks "what color?"

                China can flip us the bird with impunity, because they own our ass. Everything we did to the rest of the world for 50 years, the rest of the world can now do to us. And we won't like it.

                Get used to it.

        •  alas, the German laws were specifically (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          disrael, Radical def

          written to be more bark than bite.  Workers have no effective control over any German company. None. Their "input" is heartily ignored.

    •  If you look at the tensions (0+ / 0-)

      that are currently going on between Germany and its Mediterranean neighbors in the euro zone, you can see how they have benefited from a different sort of currency advantage.

  •  Another reason to remove Geithner, Chief Wimp (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    disrael, esquimaux

    Last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner got an earful from a panel of economists at a House Ways and Means Committee, one of them saying that if the U.S. didn't act on currency manipulation for diplomatic reasons it would be viewed as "wimps of the Western world."

    "...calling for a 5" deck gun is not parody. Not by a long shot." (gnaborretni)

    by annieli on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:51:33 AM PDT

  •  It's complicated (0+ / 0-)

    Here are two major issues:

    First, we owe China a LOT of money.  If we threaten them, how will they react?  Who will buy our treasuries?

    Second, the extra cheap labor has done a lot to fuel our consumption society.  We've been getting bargains from them for years.  Slapping on tariffs will make the goods bought by the US population more expensive.

    I'm sure there are a gazillion other issues.

    I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything about this.  What I am say is that it's complicated.

    www.tapestryofbronze.com and www.haikudiary.com

    by chloris creator on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:51:50 AM PDT

    •  Not that complicated to the Chinese (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nobody at all

      Their policy of protecting themselves seems pretty straight forward.  How come they don't have "issues"?  Mostly because their government, oddly enough, is still attempting policies that benefit their people - well some of their people.

  •  This is, of course, a two-edged sword. (6+ / 0-)

    Raise the renminbi against the dollar and stuff at Walmart and Costco becomes more expensive.  That doesn't help the people who are already unemployed.

    It's also not a quick fix for lost jobs.  Those jobs have been lost over a multi-year period, not all were lost to China, and they won't necessarily come back at all, depending on where Nike and Dell and the rest decide to look next for cheap labor and no environmental regulations.  That's not likely to be the U. S.

    Although there is a real economic issue here, there is still an element of China-bashing and racism and, dare I say it, envy at the success of central economic planning in China.  Let's not forget that for a couple of centuries, Britain, France, Holland, Germany and the United States repeatedly raped a prostrate China with forced opium trade and other economic and military exploitation.  There is a longer-term historic view that might consider that "the worm has turned" on this score.  That doesn't help American workers, though.  But our prosperity for two centuries has depended on exploiting Indians, African slaves, workers, Cuba, the Philippines, Latin America, Africa, Asia...  That life-style is never going to come back here because there are 5.7 billion other people who are more exploitable.

    Probably the best action to be taken here is for American workers to support unions worldwide and environmental and trade regulations, a thing we've never done any vigor or consistency.  Lift the boats of workers worldwide and the pay differential decreases.  That's good for American workers.

    Upstream, xgz observes "Protectionism doesn't work."  Nonsense.  Our steel and machine tool and many other industries were built and maintained with tariffs explicitly designed to do just that.  Free Trade is a mantra of strong countries against weak ones; we're not so strong anymore, economically.

    •  What I say all the time these days (4+ / 0-)

      it used to be that "workers of the world unite" was a radical slogan, now it's an economic necessity.

      We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Poitier

      by ActivistGuy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:15:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  amen (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def

        Back in the 90's, when it was the Japanese beating our asses, I was telling my colleagues in the American, uh, "labor movement" the same thing. The companies will ALWAYS go where the labor costs are cheapest.  Always.

        So we have only two choices if we want to keep "our" job here.  Either we (1) organize those workers and raise their wages to match ours, or we (2) lower our wages to match theirs.  Which do we prefer?

        Instead, the union adopted the idiotic "Buy American" campaign that so many of us here seem to want too.  It failed miserably.  After all, when it comes to Boss's patriotism or his wallet, his wallet will win every single time.

        As for tariff's, they don't help either.  Since the company doesn't pay them, the company still gets the advantage of lower costs and higher profits by manufacturing in China--so the only one who loses out is the consumer, who pays more than he would normally, while the companies continue to get higher profits from "foreign" manufactured stuff than domestic.

        •  I don't understand this: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          esquimaux, Radical def

          As for tariff's, they don't help either.  Since the company doesn't pay them, the company still gets the advantage of lower costs and higher profits by manufacturing in China

          In reality, unless they are abused - tariffs work very well. Without variable duties on a broad spectrum of items, the US IM/EX thing would have gone into the tank in the 50's or early 60's, about the same time the 'murkin dream got going.

          Back then, the people earning the high wages from employment in the production of duty protected items, were the source of high profits for US businesses.

          Now, the crime of unbridled capitalism and so-called Free Trade has poisoned the well. Automaker, butcher, store clerk, whatever --- all these formerly good jobs have turned to shit in this country.

          The Dem win on HCR is the biggest upset since the Jets Won Superbowl III ...me

          by olo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:58:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  tariffs work only if (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Radical def

            they entice a company to manufacture things here.

            They no longer do that.

            If GM has the choice between making a car here that they pay X to have manufactured, or making a car in Shanghai that they pay one-tenth X to have manufactured, they will move their plants there every time.  And if we add a tariff to those imports, GM doesn't care---they still get more profit than they would by making their cars here, since they still have one-tenth the labor costs they'd have here, and therefore nine times the profit. GM's not the ones that pay the tariff---we are.

            We are operating under the assumption that GM will do anything to keep selling cars here.  Alas, that is no longer true. Particularly if they can manufacture their car in China for one-tenth X, then sell it for full price in Japan or India instead of (or in addition to) the US.

            And of course we are all forgetting the fact that trade barriers such as the ones we are all talking about are now illegal under the WTO apparatus that we ourselves set up so we could more effectively screw other nations.  Poetic justice that other nations are now turning our own apparatus against us.  I.e., we are now the third world nation, and the economic superpowers (which no longer includes us) is doing to us what we did to them since the 50's.

            Serves us right.  (shrug)

  •  Sixty Percent Of All Chinese Exports (6+ / 0-)

    Are from American companies operating in China. You won't return jobs to the U.S. by re-valuing the yuan, these companies will simply move to Viet Nam, just as many of these jobs were moved from Mexico to China.

    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 07:57:47 AM PDT

  •  If China doesn't stop manipulating their currency (0+ / 0-)

    they should not be in the WTO. Responsible currency policy should be critical for membership in the WTO.

    •  THAT is pretty funny (4+ / 0-)

      The WTO has been a tool of American dominance since its inception. The US too busily violates WTO regulations (it uses unfair subsidies to keep agrarian products --the mainstay of many Third World economies--out of the US market), but of course the US has always had a privileged position in the world, wherein the rules simply don't apply to us.

      Of course, as the WTO has gotten more and more powerful, it has also begun to become more and more independent of the US--a trend which the US does not like at all.

  •  A great right/left alliance issue (0+ / 0-)

    Here is a great issue to set up for the fall campaign-- let's see which Republicans are so tied up with corporate lobbyists they vote against this--

    Preventing China from manipulating the US economy--

    that's what's called a WINNING ISSUE.

  •  The US built its industrial base (3+ / 0-)

    behind a wall of high tariffs, which had the purpose of "gaining an unfair advantage" for domestic manufacturers over international trade.  Sorry, good for the goose, good for the gander (though I realize there's nothing more all-American than the belief that we are entitled to our cake and eat it, too.)

    We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Poitier

    by ActivistGuy on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:13:06 AM PDT

    •  indeed (4+ / 0-)

      Basically, China and Japan are beating our asses by doing to us the same things we did to the rest of the world.

      How does it feel, everyone.

      Of course, like the Romans, we Americans have always believed that we are privileged, and that we deserve our exalted status simply because we are better than everyone.

      We're, uh, not.

      •  LOL! Right? And so... (0+ / 0-)

        China should devalue their currency by 41%??!!

        Good luck with that one, heh.

        Or rather, I should say, forget about it!

        Just hope and pray they don't call in our debts!

        ALL of the blame lays on the backs of our own monopoly corporate fascist "captains of industry", who have consistently, systematically, deliberately, and all too often, criminally, sold out our own nation, absolutely refusing to submit to the popular democratic will, let alone electoral and legislative mandates, or national and international law, for generations, in virtually every regard, for their own private profit, against the public interest.

        The traitors should be arrested, tried fairly, and...harshly sanctioned...with prejudice, where appropriate...for crimes against humanity.

        NOTHING, short of a complete retooling of our entire industry, infrastructure, economy and society to a new, progressive paradigm, of actual real democracy and appropriate alternative green technologies, will save our ass.

        Death to capitalism, as we now know it, and it's moribund form, fascism!

        Bring the Better Democrats!

        All Out for 2010 and 2012!

        "...a printing press is worth 10,000 rifles..." Ho Chi Minh

        by Radical def on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 01:39:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  An excellent backgrounder on US-China ... (0+ / 0-)

    economic matters:

    The U. S. Economy and China:  Capitalism, Class and Crisis.  By Martin Hart-Landsberg.

  •  funny (3+ / 0-)

    Back when it was Japan beating our asses, Americans were weeping and whining about how terribly unfair it was that the Japanese government was propping up all its industries.  Just as we are now weeping and whining about how China does the same thing now that THEY are beating our asses.

    Then, in the very next breath, Americans will go on to tell us all about how inefficient and bad government involvement in the economy is, and how the "free market" is so much more effective and better.

    (snicker)  (giggle)

    We better be careful what we say to China, though.  They own our asses.

    Kinda like the US owned everybody else's asses in the 50's and 60's.

    (snicker)  (giggle)

    •  Not funny. (0+ / 0-)

      I've got friends on the verge of living in a cardboard box because their jobs have been off-shored and they can no longer pay their bills.

      I fail to see what you find so fucking funny.

      Ass.

      -8.00, -8.26 "Fascism is capitalism plus murder." - Upton Sinclair

      by djMikulec on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 02:08:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  sorry to hear that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def

        Back in the 60's and 70's when the US had millions living in poverty around the world because of its economic domination of their countries, where were you . . . ?

        Are you under the delusion that American corporations are in business so they can give us all good-paying jobs?

        Dude, it was those AMERICAN COMPANIES that shipped your job overseas.  Not China, not Japan, not Mexico, not Korea -- none of those countries held a gun to any CEO's head and told them "move your plant here or else".  And you know WHY those AMERICAN-OWNED COMPANIES moved your jobs overseas?  Because they don't give a flying fuck whether you have a job or not. If you sleep in a cardboard box, that's not their problem.  They're in business to make as much money as possible--for THEMSELVES, not for you.

        Think on that for a while, THEN decide who is your real enemy.

  •  It's our policies that are the problem (0+ / 0-)

    What incentive does China have to play nice with their monetary policy?  Their policy isn't based on ideology.  It's based on what promotes China's economic interests.

    I don't advocate blind mercantilism or massive trade barriers.  But the function of economic policy is not to make statements about ideology but to promote economic growth and well being.  Subsidizing our own domestic industry is fair game.  And if China wants to start a monetary race to the bottom, well, we're the ones who get to devalue a huge portion of our international debt.

    I don't advocate bringing back the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs (that kind of trade barrier just never works, in fact free flow of labor, capital, and goods is a good thing -- interestingly enough we have free flow of capital and goods but a highly regulated system for labor) but subsidizing your domestic economy is fair game.

  •  If only the Chinese were not so intelligent! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def

    If only their system of government though different that ours were not so efficient.
    If only their educational system were not so effective.
    If only they were not so hard working.

    If only,...

    If only,...we got up off our asses and started to see around at what morons we are.
    If only we could see how we are so easily duped by our own various factions.

    If only,...

    ...how come I can't tell the free world from a living hell? Ray Lamontagne

    by weltshmertz on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 08:41:32 AM PDT

  •  If only our leaders were not jellyfish (0+ / 0-)

    Kissing China's ass is not the proper road to prosperity for the American middle class.  We lack for oil but it is primarily due to our excesses and our lack of proper economic incentives to curb the excesses.  Other than oil we have no screaming need to trade with any other sovereignty at all, and most especially we have no need to trade outside our own hemisphere.

    Trade barriers are less efficient than monetary floats.  But that is absolutely not the same as saying that trade barriers do not work or that they aren't actually necessary in a world of political imperialism.

    If we have a problem in retaining the prosperity of the American middle class then it is our responsibility to address the issue without begging the Chinese.  An import tariff on all goods from China with the proceeds of the tax used directly for middle class assistance (think of a quarterly stimulus check like the early 2008 stimulus checks) is a proper response.

    "I know no safe depository for the ultimate power of society but the people themselves" -- Jefferson

    by TheTrucker on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:06:10 AM PDT

  •  Look in the mirror Amerika,,, (0+ / 0-)

    government policies that give Chinese amerikan businesses an unfair trade advantage, labor rights suppression, environmental degradation and subsidies of production of goods for export,,,
    are why people in Haiti and other places are starving can not grow their own food any longer.

    The Dem win on HCR is the biggest upset since the Jets Won Superbowl III ...me

    by olo on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 09:35:20 AM PDT

  •  We'd all better start learning Chinese. (0+ / 0-)

    Because if we don't stop preening ourselves on being "the best in the world" and start improving this nation (in oh-so-many ways) we're all going to end up working for Chinese bosses.

    And I hear they're pretty demanding.  

  •  So where the fuck is the tariff? (0+ / 0-)

    We got stop flailing our arms about China and doing nothing.  If we really want to take action, put a 30% tariff on everything that comes into this country from China.  Protectionist?  Damn right!  It's protecting our survival.  Since when is that bad?

    You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.

    by noofsh on Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 10:14:50 AM PDT

    •  U.S should do something (0+ / 0-)

      April 15th is a very important date to see whether  we can even do the simplest thing which is to declare China a currency manipulator.

      If we can't do that , the China will see it as weakness and would increase their cheating.

      So far , the argument has been to beg the Chinese and they would eventually be rational...But these folks dont understand that China only cares about China and as long as cheating doing free trades gives them a strong advantage , why would they change all that unless the U.S is willing to stop this by putting tariff on Chinese goods.

      My fear is that Obama is are conciliator and may believe that he can resonate with China , so there's a good chance China wont be declared a currency manipulator...and China will continue to destroy our economy.

      •  China is not destroying our economy (0+ / 0-)

        WE are.

        All those American companies moved all our jobs over there voluntarily of their own free will.

        Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to leave.

        And the whole "Buy American!!!" effort that tried to stop them, fell flat on its face, and will do so every time.  The Boss doesn't care about "patriotism"--he only cares about his bank account. And his bank account likes being able to pay Chinese workers one-tenth of what he pays American workers.

        There are only two ways to stop that. Either we organize Chinese workers and raise their pay to match ours, or we agree to lower our wages top match theirs.

        Which do you prefer?

  •  US map of trade loss (0+ / 0-)

    Color values are too close together at least on my monitor making it hard to tell which state is which percent in some cases.

  •  An economic menage a trois (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades, Radical def

    The US and China have recreated the relationship that the US and Japan had in the '80s -- which an economist friend of mine once compared to a sailor and a streetwalker, both drunk, staggering along, leaning on each other to stay upright. (I leave it up to the reader to decide who played the whore and who played the sailor).

    Except that Japan is still a party to the relationship. China is now Japan's largest single export market (bigger than the USA). However, Japan's central bank still holds billions in U.S. Treasuries accumulated in the '80s, '90s and early '00s.

    If the Chinese allow the dollar to decline against the Chinese yuan, the greenback almost certainly will fall against the Japanese yen as well. Japan would lose heavily on its Treasury holdings (denominated in dollars) and become even less price competitive in the US market, but would not see much of an offsetting improvement in its price competitiveness in China.

    Finally, Japanese companies have a lot invested in Chinese manufacturing operations. In fact, Japan is the largest single direct investor in China. So if Chinese-made products became less competitive in global markets (because of a stronger yuan and a weaker dollar) Japan ultimately would lose there, as well.

    These losses would worsen the deflationary pressures on the Japanese economy, which has never really climbed out of the hole it dug for itself in the '90s.

    So now, to continue the metaphor, we have drunken sailor with a drunken prostitute on each arm, all three of them staggering down the street, leaning on each other to stay upright.

    Hell of a way to run a global economy.

     

    •  alas, that is the reality of a global economy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Radical def

      We all own each other now.

      Whether we like it or not, all of us is now utterly dependent upon everyone else. There are no "national economies" any more -- they are all interconnected and intertwined into one huge global entity, and if any part of it anywhere fails, it pulls the whole structure everywhere down with it.  That's why bank failures in Iceland caused by housing defaults in America can collapse England's economy.

      No nation, not even the big mighty US, holds its economic destiny in its own hands anymore.  We all have someone else holding us by the balls.

      We simply are not the world's "economic leader" anymore, much as we'd rather pretend otherwise. NO ONE is.  We are all utterly dependent upon each other.

      •  You sound like that the scene from "Network" (0+ / 0-)

        "You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!! It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today.  There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today."

        •  he was right (0+ / 0-)

          Nations no longer matter. Which means "nationalism" is just quaint intellectual silliness.

          But actually the guy was wrong about one thing -- he needs to add some NON-AMERICAN names to that list----Samsung, Toyota, Siemens, Glaxo.  Not only is America as a nation no longer relevant, but American corporations are an endangered species too, as the "forners" continue to kick their asses too--at least the ones that they don't already own most of themselves.

          •  Nationalism matters. Nations less and less so. nt (0+ / 0-)
          •  But you're missing the problem with the situation (0+ / 0-)

            The interconnectedness of economies is irrelevant to accountability. We don't depend on one another, we depend on intermediary institutions over which we have, IMO, insufficient influence. People in other countries have even less influence. Unless corrective action is taken, this will even out-- we will have less democracy, they will get a bit more, though I'd expect it to be of a very limited type, with back sliding to a lack of democracy when there is a revival of the wrong kind of political view. Once the culture is purified, democracy can resume.

            It's not a question of whether we should have a world government or not. We have one. It's whether it should be democratic. Some very influential people disagree.

        •  There's a bit missing in the middle there. (0+ / 0-)

          ... You think you've merely stopped a business deal -- that is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West! There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multi-variate, multi-national dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, Reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!

          Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?

          You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen, and howl about America and democracy. ...

          More here.

  •  Our tool bag is full (0+ / 0-)

    We dont need China to do anything to help us be more prosperous, we just need smart fiscal policy.  They already are selling us real goods for little bits of paper with dead presidents pictures on them. The ones they are screwing is their own citizens who have to work 12 hr days to send shit to AMERICA!!

    What if you had to get up each day to manufacture stuff for China?  When you could just keep it and use it?

    What we need is to stop tying our hands with debt ceilings and running all spending decisions through banks and bond markets.  We, as the issuer of our own NON CONVERTIBLE currency, dont ever need anyone to adjust anything.

    China is pegging their currency to us and therefore needs to acquire dollars to maintain their peg and issue more renmibi. Just like if they were on a gold standard they would need to acquire gold to "print" more money.  China really is helping us. We are working less and spending less and getting the same amount of stuff.  Our corporate power barons have antiquated notions of our monetary system and are using their considerable weight to negatively (from the average citizens perspective) influence our fiscal policy.

    •  Yeah, but then they lend the money back to be (0+ / 0-)

      spent again.
      IMO, the point is a race to the bottom. To destroy the Western economies so they end up the same as China: autocratic, and with no labor laws.

      •  That is the wrong way to think about it (0+ / 0-)

        China lends us NOTHING.  We do not need to borrow  $US from anybody.

        You are right about a race to the bottom but your story about China "lending" us money makes no sense.

        The mistake people make when they see that the total amount of bond issuance (which always gets labeled as debt) equals the amount govt spending is they get the direction of flow wrong.  The money does not flow from China or anywhere to the US govt it flows the other way.

  •  Gee Wiz Meteor (0+ / 0-)

    There is no doubt I regurgitated the info from Manufacture This, the AAM and EPI....

    but I think you might have given The Economic Populist a link, due to the content of this piece.

    Of course we need every politically active person reading this report because the blow back out there against taking any action against China or on trade is intense.  I'll be writing up more posts analyzing currency manipulation as well as China's trade statistics soon.

  •  "China's cheating" (0+ / 0-)

    How is currency manipulation cheating? The US' and other nations' financial institutions do it, private investors do it, corporations, many of comparable size to China's economy or at least significant in relation to it, do it. The only difference is that it's a government associated with a patch of land rather than a government associated with bunch of share certificates.
    The problem is "free" trade and lack of democratic international regulation.  The WTO, WB and other institutions are not accountable to the people of the world.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site