An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Globalization is a complex and difficult issue–and it ain’t going away. We need thoughtful people to address it, find a way to balance globalization and somewhat-open trade with providing a safety net at home, etc.
The bombastic, simplistic approach of a Lew Dobbs won’t cut it. . .and neither will the cheerleading “ain’t globalization great!” attitude of a Thomas Friedman.Where are the leaders who are sufficiently creative and honest to take a nuanced rather than a demogogic approach? I’m curious to know if anyone in this group has any nominations in this regard.
PS: One of the few areas where Bush made sense is in talking about an immigration policy that doesn’t label undocumented workers as murderous felons. (Scratch a lawyer or doctor who’s an American citizen with Mexican roots–and chances are better than 50-50 that he or she has beloved relatives or friends who came over here illegally. Imagine how hateful that talk of evil felons must sound to these professionals.)
Here are two examples of the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, from the world of agriculture.
1. The American cotton industry is worth $5.9 billion. The federal government subsidizes it to the tune of $4.5 billion. This is not a business. It’s a federal corporate welfare scheme. The cotton we grow is shipped to China (and other cheap labor countries) to the manufactured into clothing, since we no longer have a viable manufacturing sector in garments.
2. Americans pay twice the world market price for sugar, in order to protect sugar cane producers in Florida, Hawaii (which finally gave up on sugar), and sugar beets in the Midwest (which also didn’t fly economically, even with the supports). Corn product producers also benefit from this policy. Because of this, our soft drinks are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, now the leading suspect in our epidemic of diabetes. In the process of supporting an unviable sugar industry, we helped to destroy the economies of Cuba, Haiti, the Philippines and many other countries that produce sugar by the labor-intensive, and environmentally sound, methods appropriate to “emerging economies”.
I appreciate how complex these issues are, and cannot offer any pat answers for addressing them. My first suggestion, though, is that we take a serious look at all of these subsidy programs, all government price supports, and all forms of government corporate welfare, and assess exactly how the composite of all of these federal state and local dollars could best be applied to meet our goals: how much money, how many jobs, what contribution to the economy, what strategic goals are supported, etc. For example, what if we give up on homegrown cotton and shift that subsidy to homegrown energy crops to replace fossil fuels purchased from hostile regimes? Or what if we target specifically family farms for support and select those crops that provide more jobs per federal subsidy dollar?
Dragging this back to the beginning topic, why not apply this same scrutiny to all support programs, whether through subsidies, tarrifs, tax breaks or whatever. Let’s target them to specific strategic goals, and not just to a general pumping up of the economy with tax dollars.
I’m a free trader, so I disagree with many of the new Democrats on this issue. But I do agree with them that other countries should not be allowed to flout trade regulations. I also believe in binding trade partners with labor and environmental guarantees. Beyond that, outsourcing is a necessary part of business. And I say that in the heart of industrial Michigan. In fact, what I like about Jenny Granholm is her recognition that we have to move away from heavy manufacturing as a state in order to survive. DeVos and the Michigan Chambers of Commerce are every bit as wedded to the flailing US manufacturing sector as the unions.
globalization is one thing….outsourcing and unfair competition another
moving both tech support and customer service to call centers overseas may have increased profits and lowered costs of goods, but they increase costs in other ways, in regards to time spent on these calls
i have clients who have had to downsize thanks to unfair biz practices from chinese firms…who does that help?
wallmart is not good for america
im just trying to look out for my children’s future.
Elrod: …I do agree with them that other countries should not be allowed to flout trade regulations. I also believe in binding trade partners with labor and environmental guarantees. Beyond that, outsourcing is a necessary part of business.
Elrod, that’s my view too. Right now, we aren’t forcing or “free trade” partners with labor and environmental guarantees. That’s what is hurting businesses here you have to meet those demands thus raising their costs.
Outsourcing is here to stay and isn’t a total evil thing. Just like the late 70′s early 80′s when there was cutback in manufacturing jobs, the best thing to do with those workers is to help them learn a new trade. Here in Utah there was a industry &government funded program that helped retrain workers who lost their jobs.
That’s why I believe that helping people get an education is a better solution that just raising the minimum wage.
GreenDreams, that was a great list, but you forgot peanuts! There are farmers here in GA who aren’t allowed to sell their crop in the US for any price. Only specially designated individuals and families are allowed to farm peanuts and sell them in the US. Jimmy Carter’s family can sell peanuts here, but I can’t.
Farm subsidies and enforced monopolies are a real problem in US agriculture, and everyone who isn’t one of the lucky few farms gets to pay the price.
this isnt about protectionism, or the end to free trade…this is about unfair trade practices by other countries
so we should continue outsourcing jobs and allowing “guest workers” while other countries do nothing to increase the living standards of their people?
these practices have only worked to depress our wages
it is good to see that some of the incoming senators and congress persons may be even more militant in this area than the outgoing
Uncle Joe, you’re right that Lou’s series about outsourcing and the one about war on the middle class, are very fair minded.
Globalization is a complex and difficult issue–and it ain’t going away. We need thoughtful people to address it, find a way to balance globalization and somewhat-open trade with providing a safety net at home, etc.
The bombastic, simplistic approach of a Lew Dobbs won’t cut it. . .and neither will the cheerleading “ain’t globalization great!” attitude of a Thomas Friedman.Where are the leaders who are sufficiently creative and honest to take a nuanced rather than a demogogic approach? I’m curious to know if anyone in this group has any nominations in this regard.
PS: One of the few areas where Bush made sense is in talking about an immigration policy that doesn’t label undocumented workers as murderous felons. (Scratch a lawyer or doctor who’s an American citizen with Mexican roots–and chances are better than 50-50 that he or she has beloved relatives or friends who came over here illegally. Imagine how hateful that talk of evil felons must sound to these professionals.)
Seeing how Dobbs is an independent who really dislikes both parties, I wonder what he’d think of this.
Here are two examples of the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, from the world of agriculture.
1. The American cotton industry is worth $5.9 billion. The federal government subsidizes it to the tune of $4.5 billion. This is not a business. It’s a federal corporate welfare scheme. The cotton we grow is shipped to China (and other cheap labor countries) to the manufactured into clothing, since we no longer have a viable manufacturing sector in garments.
2. Americans pay twice the world market price for sugar, in order to protect sugar cane producers in Florida, Hawaii (which finally gave up on sugar), and sugar beets in the Midwest (which also didn’t fly economically, even with the supports). Corn product producers also benefit from this policy. Because of this, our soft drinks are sweetened with high fructose corn syrup, now the leading suspect in our epidemic of diabetes. In the process of supporting an unviable sugar industry, we helped to destroy the economies of Cuba, Haiti, the Philippines and many other countries that produce sugar by the labor-intensive, and environmentally sound, methods appropriate to “emerging economies”.
I appreciate how complex these issues are, and cannot offer any pat answers for addressing them. My first suggestion, though, is that we take a serious look at all of these subsidy programs, all government price supports, and all forms of government corporate welfare, and assess exactly how the composite of all of these federal state and local dollars could best be applied to meet our goals: how much money, how many jobs, what contribution to the economy, what strategic goals are supported, etc. For example, what if we give up on homegrown cotton and shift that subsidy to homegrown energy crops to replace fossil fuels purchased from hostile regimes? Or what if we target specifically family farms for support and select those crops that provide more jobs per federal subsidy dollar?
Dragging this back to the beginning topic, why not apply this same scrutiny to all support programs, whether through subsidies, tarrifs, tax breaks or whatever. Let’s target them to specific strategic goals, and not just to a general pumping up of the economy with tax dollars.
I’m a free trader, so I disagree with many of the new Democrats on this issue. But I do agree with them that other countries should not be allowed to flout trade regulations. I also believe in binding trade partners with labor and environmental guarantees. Beyond that, outsourcing is a necessary part of business. And I say that in the heart of industrial Michigan. In fact, what I like about Jenny Granholm is her recognition that we have to move away from heavy manufacturing as a state in order to survive. DeVos and the Michigan Chambers of Commerce are every bit as wedded to the flailing US manufacturing sector as the unions.
globalization is one thing….outsourcing and unfair competition another
moving both tech support and customer service to call centers overseas may have increased profits and lowered costs of goods, but they increase costs in other ways, in regards to time spent on these calls
i have clients who have had to downsize thanks to unfair biz practices from chinese firms…who does that help?
wallmart is not good for america
im just trying to look out for my children’s future.
Elrod, that’s my view too. Right now, we aren’t forcing or “free trade” partners with labor and environmental guarantees. That’s what is hurting businesses here you have to meet those demands thus raising their costs.
Outsourcing is here to stay and isn’t a total evil thing. Just like the late 70′s early 80′s when there was cutback in manufacturing jobs, the best thing to do with those workers is to help them learn a new trade. Here in Utah there was a industry &government funded program that helped retrain workers who lost their jobs.
That’s why I believe that helping people get an education is a better solution that just raising the minimum wage.
GreenDreams, that was a great list, but you forgot peanuts! There are farmers here in GA who aren’t allowed to sell their crop in the US for any price. Only specially designated individuals and families are allowed to farm peanuts and sell them in the US. Jimmy Carter’s family can sell peanuts here, but I can’t.
Farm subsidies and enforced monopolies are a real problem in US agriculture, and everyone who isn’t one of the lucky few farms gets to pay the price.