An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Barack Obama: The Elvis Of Politics

How To Fill the GOP’s Black Hole? »

Obama’s NAFTA Shuffle-Step

Posted by POLIMOM in At TMV.
Feb 28th, 2008 | Comments

One of the more disturbing moments in Tuesday night’s debate was when Tim Russert pinned the candidates down on NAFTA — specifically, on holding the “opt-out” hammer over the heads of Canada and Mexico to renegotiate terms.

Here’s the “button-up” from Russert to Clinton:

MR. RUSSERT: But let me button this up. Absent the change that you’re suggesting, you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months?

SEN. CLINTON: I’m confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will be able to renegotiate.

And here’s Obama:

SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton’s answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.

As an Obama supporter, I have to admit that I’m disappointed he followed Sen. Clinton down this road.

Maintaining that little bit of daylight in between them on the NAFTA question would have been fine with me — not because I think the agreement is perfect, but because Sen. Obama’s previous statements on this issue were far more responsible to US interests as a whole.

What happened to the Barack Obama who could agree that parts of the economy have seen enormous gains? Or who said that he believed in free markets and capitalism?

The answer is that Ohio happened.

This is worrisome. Although I fully expected some level of placation and pander to labor as the campaigns went deeply into Ohio, this recent plunge into full-throated populism looks like one shuffle-step too far to the left… and if this report is correct, then Obama clearly knows that.

Looking beyond the domestic aspects of the problematic pander, do either of the Democratic candidates see what signal this is sending to the world?

Threatening to renege on a permanent treaty — as Clinton and Obama are doing through their identical vows to “opt out” of the deal — signals loudly that America’s word is no longer its bond. A permanent pact with the U.S., it turns out, isn’t so permanent.

An approach like that toward our treaty partners sends a chilling signal to our friends. It’s Obama and Clinton who need to cool it.

In this heated battle for their party’s nomination, both senators are playing with fire, but I’m far more concerned about how this impacts Obama than Clinton. I want him to win the nomination, but I also want him to win the general election… and this won’t help him.

He’s going to alienate more than just our treaty partners; he’s risking great swaths of ordinary Americans as well. Senator Obama needs to step away from the edge, before he falls off entirely.

Someone needs to remind him that the campaign doesn’t end in Ohio.

  • Pete Abel
    Well said.

    I am so glad you're writing here again. I have greately missed your careful, precise analysis.
  • casualobserver
    Don't worry, mom, it appears he was only fibbing.......

    Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.
    The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

    Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member's warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTV...
  • Hi cas -- yes, I linked that story in my post. It's partly what prompted me to write this morning (though I started it last night).

    Hi Pete -- thanks so much for the nice words! It's nice to be back!
  • elrod
    I agree with polimom here. I think NAFTA has been good overall for the country. And Obama's pandering in Ohio was distasteful because he usually doesn't stoop to this level pandering. But that said, Obama's (and Clinton's) responses were not full-on reneging of NAFTA or other treaties. Insisting upon other labor and environmental standards is worthwhile, even if it means renegotiating NAFTA. None of the candidates said they'd go full-on protectionist, and Obama made a point in Ohio of stressing the importance of trade in general. But these treaties are not made to be truly permanent. They are always renegotiated depending on changing economic circumstances.

    Ironically, however, it's a somewhat outdated talking point. The real reason jobs have left for Canada at least is lower health care costs. Companies get cheaper labor in Mexico and no health care premiums in Canada. Labor is getting more expensive in Mexico compared to 1994 so companies are looking further away now. But the health care issue is still front and center.

    It's also important to link NAFTA to the immigration issue. The reason so many Mexicans have come into the US over the last 12 years is that NAFTA forced Mexico to repeal bean and rice subsidies, which meant that Monsanto and ADM could market their crops at will. Totally unable to compete with agribusiness, small Mexican farmers were forced off the land - 2 million Mexican families lost their land since 1994. Where do you think they went? Some went to work in the new maquiedores on the border and others went to the US.
  • PaulSilver
    Welcome back Polimom,
    I agree with Elrod. What I heard was that they are both willing to renegotiate adjustments to the Treaty.
    Many of us are passionate free traders, because of how effectively it has raised the quality of life for so many people around the world. However, unintended consequences should be addressed to minimize disproportionate hardship.
  • Macan
    Elrod...what is Obama going to demand Canadians do on health care? Adopt the evils of the US model to prevent jobs going north?

    Nationalism is a potent issue in Canada, and the FTA and NAFTA got approved by a squeaker years ago. If you read Canadian media referenced by Polimom above, no politician in Canada wants it re-opened...especially with a minority government.

    Even tweaking it would re-ignite a nationalist debate about evil corporate america wanting Canadian water, oil, actors etc.
  • mikkel
    I'd just like to say that even though I am an "internationalist" in most things, the concept of a permanent treaty is silly. Of course a nation has the right to withdraw from a treaty if it doesn't feel that it's in its best interest. I looked it up and NAFTA has a clause that allows withdrawal upon notification, so there isn't even any penalty and we wouldn't have to breach the contract.

    It is tricky: whenever I hear Obama pressed, he repeats his CAFTA line when talking about NAFTA (which I think is perfectly reasonable), but there is such an emotional and visceral reaction to free trade amongst so many people now it is impossible to work in a position in a sound bite. If only they had a full hour debate on trade....

    Incidentally this was the most frustrating part of the debate for me. Obama is making a fully political maneuver by tying Clinton to NAFTA even though they basically agree on what trade agreements should be now. It is a pretty cynical move of him to focus on the past; however, Clinton could have just said "no I was wrong before and I've changed my mind as I've seen it in practice," yet she continues to try to ridiculously side step the issue.
  • If I may shift this dialog a bit, what DO we do about the dark side of globalization? All over the world, workers are exploited and discarded, and the environment trashed, for our benefit. My guess is that free-traders, sadly, don't care. Let the market decide, they think--to use child labor, to have no worker protections, to run sweatshops and dump all their toxic effluent untreated into the environment. Perhaps I'm overstating what free trade types want, but I'm not exaggerating a bit about what is happening all over the world.

    In China, farmers leave their $100/year rural lives for $100/month jobs in Guangdong. They work 12 hour days with no breaks (a day off a month if the factory isn't too busy). Then they die, like those who polish semiprecious stones for us without protection--they die of silicosis from breathing the dust. The same is happening in Mexico. Farmers are losing their land because of NAFTA, moving to miserable exploitive and sometimes deadly jobs in the city or risking their lives to emigrate illegally. I trust this erudite group knows just what I'm talking about. While most Americans don't even have passports, TMV readers strike me as a pretty heady group.

    American companies can't exploit workers this way, though they once did. Unions, labor and environmental laws prevent it. So it's lots cheaper to make things abroad, where you simply ignore worker (and consumer) safety and the environment.

    When we give tax breaks to companies who outsource production to these hell holes, we not only take that job from an American, we support slavery, exploitation and murder.

    Can we talk? What do we do about this?
  • Mikkel beat me to it. "the concept of a permanent treaty is silly" and "Clinton could have just said "no I was wrong before and I've changed my mind as I've seen it in practice," yet she continues to try to ridiculously side step the issue."

    Good job :-)
  • When we give tax breaks to companies who outsource production to these hell holes, we not only take that job from an American, we support slavery, exploitation and murder.


    The flip side is that if we put all these rules in place, no money will ever end up going to these poorer countries, and rich Western nations will just be trading amongst themselves. It's a tough problem.
  • casualobserver
    "When we give tax breaks to companies who outsource production to these hell holes,"

    Please articulate for me the "tax break" provided for "outsourcing" of jobs.
  • mikkel
    Here.

    Anyway, both Chris and GreenDreams are right, and that's why I think the best solution going forward is to have free trade agreements that are predicated upon basic labor and environmental standards to remain in effect.

    Also, I think that microfinance has a huge role to play in building up local economies.
  • Amanda
    Chris that isn't necessarily true. We could put fair wage/safety/environmental protection laws in place around the world and it would still be cheaper to manufacture goods in Africa than it would be in North America. The cost of living is so much lower that a fair wage in most African countries is still a small fraction of a fair wage in the US or Canada. Plus, the lack of infrastructure and industry in many areas means that there isn't any costly cleanup or renovation or rebuilding - any company that follows an environmentally friendly initiative could incorporate it into their plans from the very beginning. For example, they could use solar panels or wind turbines to generate their own electricity.
  • casualobserver
    mikkel —18 minutes ago with 1 point

    Here.

    OK, thanks. Undoubtedly will work as well when Senator Obama says it did for Senator Kerry.
  • MaryL
    From Ben Smith at Politico:

    Canadians deny Obama call

    A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of Nafta. "None of the presidential campaigns have called either the Ambassador or any of the officials here to raise Nafta," Landry said. He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject. "We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us," Landry said. "There is no story as far as we’re concerned," he said.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    I think NAFTA has, on the whole, been good for us. But there are places (Ohio is one of them) that have had some problems.

    While I'm not in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I think the existence of those problems ought to be acknowledged.
  • The_Master
    Polimom,

    I agree with you. The promises politicians make while they pander for votes do matter. I remember when George W. Bush was running for president in 2000. He promised Pennsylvania that if elected, he would slap a tariff on steel imports into the US. Since this would raise the cost of every product made from steel in the US for all consumers in the US, everyone--including me--assumed he 'was just pandering--he's not serious'.

    Then he was elected, and one of the first things he did was slap a tariff on a steel imports. The tariff was clearly illegal under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, and the US was sued in the WTO. However it took years for the complaint to be resolved (the US lost) and for the US appeal to be heard (the US lost again). At which point, the tariff was removed.

    Years of higher cost products to all US industries (think automobile makers . . . ) and to all US consumers, but he kept his word and delivered on his pander.

    All politicians lie, but those who are inclined to give Clinton and Obama a pass here should remember that sometimes, when you think you just heard a lie, they cross you up and tell the truth.
  • Chris that isn't necessarily true. We could put fair wage/safety/environmental protection laws in place around the world and it would still be cheaper to manufacture goods in Africa than it would be in North America.


    It would still be cheaper, but the plan won't work unless the vast majority of countries around the world are on board. Otherwise corporations will understandably shop their factories around.
  • casualobserver
    Not that we should ever let the facts hold sway over a good political talking point, but........

    If outsourcing were in fact the chief cause of manufacturing losses, one would expect corresponding increases in manufacturing employment in developing countries. An Alliance Capital Management study of global manufacturing trends from 1995 to 2002, however, shows that this was not the case: the United States saw an 11 percent decrease in manufacturing employment over the course of those seven years; meanwhile, China saw a 15 percent decrease and Brazil a 20 percent decrease. Globally, the figure for manufacturing jobs lost was identical to the U.S. figure -- 11 percent. The fact that global manufacturing output increased by 30 percent in that same period confirms that technology, not trade, is the primary cause for the decrease in factory jobs. A recent analysis of employment data from U.S. multinational corporations by the U.S. Department of Commerce reached the same conclusion.

    http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20040501faessay83...
  • Some distance up the thread, GreenDreams asked,
    "When we give tax breaks to companies who outsource production to these hell holes, we not only take that job from an American, we support slavery, exploitation and murder.

    Can we talk? What do we do about this?"


    IMHO, a large part of what I think you're talking about relates directly to the relative stages of development between first world countries and third world.

    At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, our country's working conditions looked remarkably similar. It took time for the massive socio-economic changes to percolate through, and while I realize that you're likely to hate my thinking here, I suspect the cheap-labor countries will also move through cycles very similar to ours -- in time.
  • Polimom,
    I think you're right. Those countries get slowly more wealthy. But is there any way we can make the process a little less cruel?
  • Casual, tax law is unbelievably boring and difficult to read, so I'm going to have to let you read it yourself. Our tax code as (constantly) amended allows multinationals or American companies to profit from offshoring.

    Specifically:
    Tax code rewards U.S. firms that move their production overseas and then turn around and import those products back to the United States for sale. When a U.S. company closes down a U.S. manufacturing plant, firing its American workers to move those good-paying jobs to China or other locations abroad, U.S. tax laws allow these firms to defer paying any U.S. income taxes on the earnings from those now foreign-manufactured products until those profits are returned, if ever, to this country. This tax break is not available to American companies that make the very same products here on American soil. So the U.S. company that decides to stay at home suffers a competitive disadvantage -- a disadvantage that our tax laws have helped to create. Multinational companies ought to pay the same taxes that domestic companies pay. At a minimum, U.S. companies that keep their jobs here should not be put at a competitive disadvantage by federal tax policy.

    According to the latest available data [but this is from 2005] , the number of foreign manufacturing affiliates has grown from 7,420 to 8,490, up some 14 percent since 1993. From 1993 though 2004, U.S. companies moved one million manufacturing jobs offshore to their foreign affiliates.


    In another scheme, tax law allows companies to set up subsidiaries in tax haven countries, which they allow to hold intangible items that they then pay the subsidiary to use.

    "instead of moving headquarters offshore, many companies are simply placing patents on drugs, ownership of corporate logos, techniques for manufacturing processes and other intangible assets in tax havens…The companies then charge their subsidiaries in higher-tax locales, including the U.S., for the use of these intellectual properties. This allows the companies to take profits in these havens and pay far less in taxes.”


    (Exxon-Mobil has 11 such subsidiaries in the Bahamas and 59% of the 100 largest federal contractors have them)

    Two things: Obviously, from the dates in this article, this ugly idea wasn't invented just by the GOP, but the pro-business at any cost GOP (and smaller but similar elements in the Dem party) has fought every attempt to change the situation. What's good for (campaign funding) business is good for America. Yeah, right.

    If you want tax code cites, I'll provide them, but I can only assure you an unintended nap if you try to read them all.
  • PaulSilver
    "When we give tax breaks to companies who outsource production to these hell holes,"
    Please articulate for me the "tax break" provided for "outsourcing" of jobs.

    I am no expert but I suspect that these business can adjust their US taxes downward by expensing and capitalizing their investments in moving operations offshore.
  • Paul, was that adequate description, or you want more?

    Hey *sniff* I have -5 "clout" here. Should I just bugger off?
  • Slamfu
    Exploitation of workers is a pretty sad thing, but there isn't really anything we can do about it. The gov'ts of those countries have to protect the people, and if they don't want to, in most cases they are the problem itself, the people are well and truly screwed. Do we tell WalMart(or any company that imports) not to buy goods from a place? How do we enforce that when they start shipping from a port of convenience and switching the "Made in xxx" stickers to something else? The reason these free trade agreements come into place is that the market is now at a point where shipping means practically nothing, labor anywhere can be your labor.

    What do we do? Encourage labor unions in other nations. They have to go thru the same brutal process of labor organization the west had to go thru in the 19th and 20th centuries. Likely even more brutal in places like China and Burma. I find it funny that the conditions that birthed communism in the first place are being so closely repeated in Communist China. Workers paradise my ass.
  • Here's a law firm that is advertising just such an approach. There are many who will be glad to help companies avoid US taxes legally. Read their front page.
  • hmmm, Slamfu, these conditions existed here before unions and worker-protection laws, and in dozens or hundreds of perfectly capitalist countries worldwide. Let's not try to make this a Communist issue, when out of control capitalism is the usual model.

    What to do? Change the rules. Make sure every company pays as much in taxes as if all its manufacturing, marketing, R&D, clinical trials, IP holdings and everything else is onshore. Wipe out the advantage for trashing local companies. Any company that doesn't like it can just forgo the American market, and you know they won't.
  • domajot
    It would be more helpful, I think, to focus on how to deal witth the negative reperrcussions in the US. To say that global trade has helped other countries or that it has helped our overall economy does not assuage those who have been badly hurt.
    So far, we have had a laisez-faire, sink or swim, attitude, one that invites backlash and talk of isolationism, but we would only hurt ourselves were we to opt out of trading opportunities. The global economy is here to stay, and we just need to figure out how to deal with the negative consequences.
    We should start by acknowledging them, like George Sorwell said.

    It's unfortunate that the debate didn't even touch on this aspect. We are debating issues one by one , but they are all part of the same picture: health care, the soaring cost of education, the housing crises, the south-facing economy, the national debt, cash strapped local governments, etc. etc., it's all part of the same game. Simplistic answers like 'no taxes' or 'renegotiate' won't do the trick.

    I would love to hear a politician, any politician, address the issue in a holistic, nuts and bolts, pragmatic and non-ideologogical way. Seeing what we can learn from Ireland, would be one place to start, if we acknowlege the primacy of job creation.
    Then let's see how our health care fiasco ties into job creation. and proceed from there, step by step.

    To succeed, we need buy-in from everyone, and to make promises for one social group at a time, adapting the promises accordingly, is not helpful. I think politicians would be amazed how adult voters can be if they are addresed as such. Explain the problems, present a holistic vision for a solution without promising the moon and the stars, and we'll get it! Stick to emply slogans, and you;ll divide us into warring camps, stuck in a forever stalemate.

    It's the election season, of course, and I'm foolish to expect other than what I hear.
    Unfortuantely, the election season never seems to end.

    Will the pragmatist in the nation ever stand up?
  • The_Master
    Polimom,

    The economic illiteracy of the US public is alarming. It is what allows foolish political panders (I'll renegotiate NAFTA on my terms in 6 months or we'll withdraw!) and simplistic "solutions", e.g.

    "Change the rules. Make sure every company pays as much in taxes as if all its manufacturing, marketing, R&D, clinical trials, IP holdings and everything else is onshore."


    to sound less than absurd. In the above proposal, for example, would we also require that foreign companies pay taxes to the US government--at US tax rates--on all their profits and royalties earned outside the US? Will Toyota be paying US tax revenue on its Japanese operations? Ford and GM would be. If foreign companies don't have to do so, wouldn't that put US companies at a bit of a competitive disadvantage? Talk about destroying US jobs . . .

    As for trying to wrap all of the issues together and look for an integrated solution to them all, well, good luck with that. These issues are not completely independent, e.g. the cost of providing health care is part of the cost of US automakers' vehicles but is absorbed by the government in France and the UK. However, trying to address them all simultaneously is, imho, not possible. It introduces so many options and permutations that consensus will never happen. It would be worse than the chaos that would result from scrapping all US laws at once and trying to get people to agree on what new laws should replace them. Or for that matter, scrapping the US tax codes completely and trying to get agreement on what should replace them.

    There's a reason politics spends most of the effort nibbling around the edges of issues, and not blazing new trails.
  • GreenDreams,
    If you want a low clout, go post some reasonable comments at Captain Ed's nutjob factory. Only warmongering Bushists allowed.
  • domajot
    If an economy savvy electorate is what is needed, then they ned to be educated in the same way as in any other subject:: by showing how the details (their personal expeirence) fits into the broad picture (the nation's economy) .
    Ignoring the details, falsifies the lesson. The lesson will be totally rejected, if the detail of their persoanl experience is denied, imitted, or arrogantly pooh-pood.

    When it comes to policy implementation, of course, everything can't be done at once. However, it is important that people understand how each separate issue fits into the broad picture. You wouldn't teach math, without a basic understanding of how numbers make up sums, would you?

    When we debate each issue as the be-all and end-all, we lose sight of its significance.
  • Slamfu
    "Slamfu, these conditions existed here before unions and worker-protection laws, and in dozens or hundreds of perfectly capitalist countries worldwide."

    I'm aware its not a communist only problem. I was actually highlighting that it was exploitation by those who had the power led to the creation of communism in the East. In the west we had a more moderate approach of labor unions that allowed workers to deal on an even footing with manufacturers and employers without changing gov't styles.

    Capitalism out of control is exactly what you get in these industrial booms. Without either regulation or organization you have an unfair situation. Those who are buying the labor have way too much clout vs. those who are supplying the labor. This undermines the basic tenet of the free market system, and unfairness ensues.

    I seriously disagree with your plan to simply apply a tax on the companies that would offset the savings they are getting by going overseas. First off, how do you gauge that? Second, its just reactionary and unfair. Third, it does nothing to address the real problem, that these 3rd world production nations have no labor laws or workers rights. And your last premise, that

    "Any company that doesn't like it can just forgo the American market, and you know they won't."

    is forgetting the fact that once the costs of a manufacturers goods rise, they won't have to abandon the American market, it will abandon them. People buy Wal-marts stuff because its cheap. If its no longer cheap, they go elsewhere and all you've done is open the market to foreign companies to come in an scoop up the market share. Of course you can offset them with more taxes, but now you have a situation of the gov't simply applying taxes, hoping they are doing it just right to balance this precarious situation, again without affecting the labor issues of other nations and asking taxpayers to pay more for stuff.
  • pacatrue
    Domajot, what did you have in mind with the Ireland example?
  • casualobserver
    Perhaps it is a reference to the formation of the IFSC, but just a guess.
  • Thanks for the "simplistic" and "absurd" comment, master.
    I'm not running for office, so there's no detailed plan on my website <smile>. The point is that if we want all our manufacturing to go abroad, we're on exactly the right track. Have a look at our trade deficit with China, with detail about all the steps we've taken to create China as an economic superpower. Business is all for this, as they supported each of the incentives from the US side. Are we OK with slave-condition laborers in eco-disaster zones making everything for us so companies can be more profitable? Sure, we want everything to be inexpensive, but we need jobs to buy anything.

    And no, I'm not suggesting Chinese or Japanese or Canadian companies pay US taxes on sales to their own populace. But there's no excuse for US taxes owed to be deferred for overseas subsidiaries but not for all-American companies. What a pathetic disincentive for American entrepreneurs.

    And much of this is not even real outsourcing; it's outright tax evasion. I know they're efficient, but who could imagine that over 12,000 US companies could have their corporate headquarters in this five story building in the Caymans. What kind of operations do you suppose they can all get done in there? Times article on that HERE.

    ChrisWWW, that's exactly what I did. Oops. lol

    Slamfu, I'm open to ideas on how to keep American manufacturing and other business operations competitive. But it's just as 'unfair' to allow--nay, incentivize--American industries to die while we borrow a billion dollars a day from China then give 80% of it back to buy their goods. Not to pick only on China, but by kowtowing to multinational companies to the point that China becomes our banker and our manufacturing base cannot bode well for our workers or home-grown companies.

    I agree with you that we need to address labor and environmental standards first, and that in itself will raise the cost of imports, as it should.

    Finally, casual, clever use of figures to talk of manufacturing employment rather than manufacturing. China is, as we did, becoming massively more efficient in manufacturing, making more with fewer workers. HERE is a chart of China's manufacturing productivity.
  • DLS
    When was NAFTA passed? America's Mother-in-Law From Hell [tm] would be more believeable at least on a decent psychological plane if she divorced Bubba before attacking NAFTA.

    Bonus morsel for thought:

    Q: Why are so many Hispanics coming here from Mexico and Central America?

    A: Their jobs at home were relocated from Mexico and Central America to China.
  • Slamfu
    Well the answer to keeping manufacturing here when somewhere else is doing the same work for 25% of the costs is that you can't. Nor can you keep poor from other countries coming here to do our scutwork for 10x what they'd make at it in their country. Its the price of success. You want to use tariffs to solve the problem you just end up tying the hands of businesses and ultimately weakening them.

    This problem will only work itself out with time, as these sweatshop nations evolve into places with labor laws and prosperity for the workers, increasing the costs of doing business with them. Or, manufacturing laborers here making noticably less than before, or both.
  • Slamfu
    "Q: Why are so many Hispanics coming here from Mexico and Central America?

    A: Their jobs at home were relocated from Mexico and Central America to China."

    Lol really? The housekeeping, janitorial, gardening and farming was outsourced to China?
  • Slamfu
    Oh, and short order cooks too. Those chinese are amazing :)
  • Jim_Satterfield
    Factories are moving from China to even cheaper countries already. Consider how cheap China really is for them even now and what that says about their mindset. But...how long will it take for them to run out of countries to move to? Decades, at least.

    So...the folks saying that we need ways to adapt are right. How? Universal health care. Truly affordable housing (Develop new construction technologies to enable this. It's really the only way.). Affordable higher education and job training. Unemployment benefits that last long enough for people to take advantage of that education and job training to change jobs/careers. Ah, heck. Let's be honest and admit that if someone has lost their job they have no money to pay for education and if you just give them loans they won't be able to repay them at starting wages given what the rest of their financial situation will probably be like. So if that education isn't free it probably won't be affordable for many who need it the worst. Anything else?
  • Here's another way. Run out of cheap oil so the transport cost gets too high. But first, let's close the loopholes. I don't give a damn if it hurts cheating companies. Paying your Cayman company to hold the rights to your logo in order to offshore your profits? There's no way we should allow that.

    Hmmmmm. Wonder how many logos and patents I can "hold" in a 5 story building.
  • I really don't know what we would be retrained for. It's not just manufacturing, now. The "service sector" that was supposed to be our fallback has gone too. Indian programmers have better infrastructure than we do, people go to China for elective surgery now, the highest of the high tech is outsourced. What single thing--ahem, besides weapons--do we still maintain any primacy in producing?
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC