← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · amussert
Thread ID: 11850 | Posts: 13 | Started: 2004-01-11
2004-01-11 23:40 | User Profile
Some Conservatives now are beginning to admit that the situation is more serious than they thought, and that the long-term consequences of the global economy will lead eventually to transforming the USA into a thirld world country. Today C-SPAN aired this show:
Forum Free Trade and the Global Economy Brookings Institution Washington, District of Columbia (United States) ID: 179821 - 01/07/2004 - 1:30 - $45.00
Schumer, Charles E., U.S. Senator, D-NY Donohue, Thomas, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Nessen, Ron, Vice President, Brookings Institution, Communications Roberts, Paul Craig, Official, Hoover Institution Brainard, Lael, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Economic Studies
Mr Craig, towards the end of the segment actually said that he expected the US will become a 3rd world nation within the next 30 years. When Mr Donohue heard this, he became obviously very nervous and tried to change the subject. Immediately after the Jew in charge ended the program.
Then I tried to see if I could find more of Mr Craig's recent work and this is what I found:
Paul Craig Roberts: Driving jobs offshore isn't the way free trade is supposed to work Charles Schumer and Paul Craig Roberts
Published January 7, 2004 ROBERTS0107
"I was brought up, like most Englishmen, to respect free trade not only as an economic doctrine which a rational and instructed person could not doubt but almost as a part of the moral law," wrote John Maynard Keynes in 1933. And indeed, to this day, nothing gets an economist's blood boiling more quickly than a challenge to the doctrine of free trade.
Yet in that essay of 70 years ago, Keynes himself was beginning to question some of the assumptions supporting free trade. The question today is whether the case for free trade made two centuries ago is undermined by the changes now evident in the modern, global economy.
Two recent examples illustrate this concern. Over the next three years, a major New York securities firm plans to replace its team of 800 American software engineers, who each earns about $150,000 per year, with an equally competent team in India earning an average of only $20,000.
Second, within five years the number of radiologists in this country is expected to decline significantly because MRI data can be sent over the Internet to Asian radiologists capable of diagnosing the problem at a small fraction of the cost.
These anecdotes suggest a seismic shift in the world economy brought on by three major developments. First, new political stability is allowing capital and technology to flow far more freely around the world. Second, strong educational systems are producing tens of millions of intelligent, motivated workers in the developing world, particularly in India and China, who are as capable as the most highly educated workers in the developed world but available to work at a tiny fraction of the cost. Last, inexpensive, high-bandwidth communications make it feasible for large work forces to be located and effectively managed anywhere.
We are concerned that the United States may be entering a new economic era in which American workers will face direct global competition at almost every job level -- from the machinist to the software engineer to the Wall Street analyst.
Any worker whose job does not require daily face-to-face interaction is now in jeopardy of being replaced by a lower-paid, equally skilled worker thousands of miles away. American jobs are being lost not to competition from foreign companies, but to multinational corporations, often with American roots, that are cutting costs by shifting operations to low-wage countries.
Most economists want to view these changes through the classic prism of "free trade," and they label any challenge as protectionism. But these new developments call into question some of the key assumptions supporting the doctrine of free trade.
The case for free trade is based on the British economist David Ricardo's principle of "comparative advantage" -- the idea that each nation should specialize in what it does best and trade with others for other needs. If each country focused on its comparative advantage, productivity would be highest and every nation would share part of a bigger global economic pie.
However, when Ricardo said that free trade would produce shared gains for all nations, he assumed that the resources used to produce goods -- what he called the "factors of production" -- would not be easily moved over international borders.
Comparative advantage is undermined if the factors of production can relocate to wherever they are most productive: in today's case, to a relatively few countries with abundant cheap labor. In this situation, there are no longer shared gains -- some countries win and others lose.
When Ricardo proposed his theory in the early 1800s, major factors of production -- soil, climate, geography and even most workers -- could not be moved to other countries. But today's vital factors of production -- capital, technology and ideas -- can be moved around the world at the push of a button. They are as easy to export as cars.
This is a very different world than Ricardo envisioned. When American companies replace domestic employees with lower-cost foreign workers in order to sell more cheaply in home markets, it seems hard to argue that this is the way free trade is supposed to work. To call this a "jobless recovery" is inaccurate: lots of new jobs are being created, just not here in the United States.
In the past, we have supported free trade policies. But if the case for free trade is undermined by changes in the global economy, our policies should reflect the new realities.
While some economists and elected officials suggest that all we need is a robust retraining effort for laid-off workers, we do not believe retraining alone is an answer, because almost the entire range of "knowledge jobs" can be done overseas.
Likewise, we do not believe that offering tax incentives to companies that keep American jobs at home can compensate for the enormous wage differentials driving jobs offshore.
America's trade agreements need to reflect the new reality. The first step is to begin an honest debate about where our economy really is and where we are headed as a nation.
Old-fashioned protectionist measures are not the answer, but the new era will demand new thinking and new solutions. And one thing is certain: Real and effective solutions will emerge only when economists and policymakers end the confusion between the free flow of goods and the free flow of factors of production.
Charles Schumer, a Democrat, is the senior senator from New York. Paul Craig Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy in the Reagan administration. They wrote this article for the New York Times.
2004-01-12 07:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE][B]Old-fashioned protectionist measures are not the answer, but--[/B][/QUOTE]
Some things don't change, folks.
Who were those autoworkers in Detroit who tried to tell everyone else that when it was the white-collar professionals whose jobs were at risk, it would be too late for the country?
Wait a minute. No, it was the steelworkers in Youngstown in 1977 who were trying to tell that to Jimmy Carter.
Everyone needs to look into that mantra they've been forced to say:
[B]OLD-FASHIONED PROTECTIONIST MEASURES[/B]
What would they be? Things like tariffs that built half the country? Is it the word "protectionist" that bothers them? As in Defense Department-FBI-CIA-NSA-ATF-blah-blah-blah why, some things just can't enough protection, it looks like from here.
Either America's a country or it ain't. If it ain't, ship Bushies job to f**king Nigeria. If it is, we all start to [B]protect[/B] each other.
2004-01-12 14:02 | User Profile
Ragnar,
Exactly. The only fly in the ointment is just who in the hell is going to buy the multinationals' crummy products if everyone except a few as in Brazil are poor? Then again, I happen to believe that is the intention here combined with the "Wilderness Project."
We are concerned that the United States may be entering a new economic era in which American workers will face direct global competition at almost every job level -- from the machinist to the software engineer to the Wall Street analyst.
Well, there is one group that won't have to worry about foreign competition and that is stupid and ignorant talk radio hosts. Instead, they should consider what I wrote above. When buying power for most people goes to zilch the need for advertising goes down as well, which is what pays the salaries for these fools.
2004-01-12 18:10 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Sertorius]Well, there is one group that won't have to worry about foreign competition and that is stupid and ignorant talk radio hosts.[/QUOTE]
Begs the question why no one of these free trade uber alles outsourcing advocates are pushing to outsource government jobs? For example, I'm sure there are some Indians or Chinese communists that could process social security checks or food stamp payments cheaper than what it cost 'our' government. What's good for American corporations ought to be good for American government. Heck, the state of Texas could outsource the entire DPS to Mexico. It already primarily speaks Mexican anyway, so we 'customers' probably wouldn't even notice any changes. We could use the money saved to help fund existing bilingual programs in the public schools.
2004-01-12 19:08 | User Profile
I saw that particluar episode on C-SPAN, and was a bit surprised to see PC Roberts sitting next to Schumer, probably my most hated Senator.
P.C. looked really tired, very old. He looked like he was falling asleep, 65. He had a drawl, so I"m guessing he is a Southerner of sorts. He said we'll be a 3-rd world country in 20 years, if I heard right.
If he's on the same side as Schumer, I'm going to have to pass.
-Jay
2004-01-13 11:11 | User Profile
Jay,
I didn't see the segment unfortunately. I will write this though. I don't think it is so much that Roberts is on the same side as Schumer as it is Schumer trying to exploit the situation for his own purposes. I bet that Roberts loaths people like the greasy Schumer. As a note aside, Chucky is a member of the C.F.R.
T.D.,
I have some bad news for you. (and me as well) Some states are using Indians and other off shore sources to process govt. paper work like S.S. and food stamps.
2004-01-14 04:27 | User Profile
Greeting, Don, and welcome to the forum.
New York Daily News - [url]http://www.nydailynews.com[/url] State jobs don't belong abroad
Sunday, November 2nd, 2003
Every American should be outraged by the massive outsourcing of U.S. jobs overseas. This new trend is not about efficiency, higher productivity or skill level, but about selling out American jobs to cheap foreign labor. A new study from the University of California-Berkeley reports that as many as 14 million U.S. service jobs are at risk of being shipped overseas.
But it's not just corporations. Many state and local governments are following the pathetic example set by corporate America. And the trend is expected to worsen.
A recent study by Input Research found that the market for state and local government information technology outsourcing will grow from $10 billion in 2003 to $23 billion in 2008. The problem now, however, is that some state and local governments are not simply outsourcing jobs to contractors that employ American workers. Several government agencies have actually begun to outsource work to firms that utilize cheaper foreign labor.
One of the most mystifying examples is Indiana. The state's Department of Workforce Development is responsible for helping out-of-work Indiana citizens find jobs. Ironically, the department has awarded a $15 million contract to update its computers to the Bombay firm Tata. The project will provide employment to 65 workers coming from India on L-1 visas. The reason given for the move was the millions in tax dollars it will save the taxpayers of Indiana.
This is, of course, the worst kind of shortsighted thinking. New Jersey state Sen. Shirley Turner points out that outsourcing government jobs overseas ultimately results in higher costs to state and local governments and lost income tax revenue.
"If people don't work they don't pay taxes, and if people don't pay taxes we can't provide the services that we're responsible for providing," the Democrat says.
Keeping tax dollars in the U.S. will continue to be crucial as states struggle to repair their finances. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that weak tax revenues will contribute to the state budgetary shortfalls that will persist through at least 2005. According to the study, states will have additional combined annual budgetary gaps of more than $40 billion in 2005, on top of the $78 billion already reported for 2004.
Some state politicians have proposed legislation to stop government from outsourcing jobs to foreign workers and overseas labor markets. Six states have introduced bills that would require work on government contracts be performed by Americans.
Turner, for instance, proposed legislation forbidding the outsourcing of government jobs after the company eFunds, which ran a Green Bay, Wis., call center for New Jersey welfare recipients, moved the center to Bombay.
She told me, "These were jobs that welfare recipients easily could have done themselves. But we were sending the jobs out of the country, rather than employing our own."
Fortunately Turner's action created some tangible results as "eFunds decided they were going to move their call center not just back to this country, but to Camden, N.J., which is one of the poorer cities in our state."
Looking for leadership
Although victories like this are certainly something to cheer, there is little leadership at the federal level. Among the few saying "enough is enough" is Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). Hunter spearheaded "Buy American" provisions in the House-passed fiscal 2004 defense-authorization bill. The provisions were to boost the domestic content requirement in military hardware from 50% to 65%. A new compromise proposal will give priority to U.S. suppliers. A good beginning.
We must stop or at least constrain the trends toward outsourcing American jobs to cheap foreign labor. The American dream for our workers is too high a price for global competitiveness.
===============================
You're right about the government unions. They are fighting this tooth and nail from going through one of their websites.
2004-01-17 14:36 | User Profile
In a "worse is better" sort of way, this thing is really shaping up nicely.
Ygg lists Joseph Tainter's "Collapse of Complex Societies" among WN classics, and I think he's right about that. Tainter describes beautifully how socieities collapse.
The export of middle class jobs combined with yawning trade and budget deficits, endless wars, a de facto bankrupt pension system on the eve of the mass retirement of the boomers (both private and SSI) and open borders means that ultimately that the Racial Extortion Coalition that rules America will find it impossible to continue to finance its own project. Tax rates will have to soar against dramatically reduced wages even as these same economically disgruntled whites have their sons and daughters drafted to fight for Exxon's profits and the greater glory of Israel while tatooed Mexican gangbangers swill cheap beer and pi$$ on their lawns.
Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I really think we might be looking at something approaching a Big Crunch and CWII. Shub is so incompetent that he may yet snatch the IP's defeat from the jaws of victory. Like that Notre Dame linebacker who lost the game by scoring a touchdown for the other side in the old film footage.
The only possible wrench in my dream machine is accelerating productivity gains recently reported, but I suspect those have much to do with the very export of jobs and are illusory (costs less to do the same thing not because we're working smarter but because Asians are working cheaper). A major breakthrough in energy production could also provide the real productivity gains required to forestall disaster, and I suppose that could be done if we went gangbusters on switching to hydrogen cars, cheap solar power, improved nuclear power, greatly improved power transmission, and so forth. That seems an outside chance, though. If Clinton were in office I'd actually worry about that (he was really smart and saw this was probably the elite's best (only?) hope of avoiding disaster) but the "intellectually uncurious" Shrub will never figure that out, we can rest assured. Besides, the man has his hands full handling several wars, killing the fourth and fifth amendments and merging America with turd world Mexico that can't be bothered with little problems like ensuring greater productivity in energy production and use that is the very plinth of our economy. Besides, he's an incompetent fool (although no stupid, like many suspect).
In short, ITZ shaping up quite nicely. Maybe we'll actually get our collapse. I'm guessing 12 years (2016 presidential elections) but with Shrub's monumental mismanagement it could happen tomorrow!
I have my place in the mountains all ready to go, folks, and I suggest you all do the same. Buy some gold coins, too. Our job is to stir up as much sh*t as possible, and then hightail to the hills to let the morons kill each other until our hour comes 'round at last.
Then the real fun starts. I can hardly wait!
Walter
2004-01-18 04:47 | User Profile
Walter,
ââ¬Â¦ultimately that the Racial Extortion Coalition that rules America will find it impossible to continue to finance its own project.
Steve Sailor noted recently that the number of whites available to finance each ââ¬ËAffirmative Actionââ¬â¢ beneficiary has fallen from 8 in the 1960s to just over 2 today.
A major breakthrough in energy production could also provide the real productivity gains required to forestall disaster, and I suppose that could be done if we went gangbusters on switching to hydrogen cars, cheap solar power, improved nuclear power, greatly improved power transmission, and so forth.ââ¬â¢
Thereââ¬â¢s no real prospect of the use of hydrogen cars creating productivity gains in the foreseeable future. The drive (groan) for hydrogen power is CO2 emissions reduction, not efficiency. Hydrogen industrially is made from natural gas, which isnââ¬â¢t going to get much cheaper. The hydrocarbon free method of making hydrogen ââ¬â electrolysis ââ¬â is painfully expensive.
Solar power is likewise a ââ¬Ëgreenââ¬â¢ energy source struggling to even compete with hydrocarbons in terms of efficiency.
Thereââ¬â¢s a new nuclear power technology called a ââ¬Ëpebble reactorââ¬â¢ thatââ¬â¢s reckoned to be safer and cheaper (in part by being safer) than the current type, but itââ¬â¢s still in development (in South Africa and China mainly) and is an incremental improvement. Nuclear fusion is as far away as ever and there is still scepticism as to whether the approach used is even capable of creating more energy than it consumes, so itââ¬â¢s not just a matter of refining the technology.
2004-01-18 06:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Leveller]Steve Sailor noted recently that the number of whites available to finance each ââ¬ËAffirmative Actionââ¬â¢ beneficiary has fallen from 8 in the 1960s to just over 2 today.[/QUOTE]
And President Boosh is working to put that figure under 1 before election day.
Finally, we all get to be our brutha's keeper.:dry:
2004-01-18 15:24 | User Profile
Leveller:
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I imagine that you're right about the energy productivity thing. Of course, there are other productivity-boosting factors like increase telecommuting and other uses of IT, but I doubt that will be enough to save our bacon.
Of course, I've been saying that it can't last for the longest time now, and the "crunch" hasn't arrived. I freely admit total confusion on the issue - why the thing hasn't collapsed already baffles me utterly.
Walter
2004-01-20 03:19 | User Profile
[QUOTE]I have my place in the mountains all ready to go, folks, and I suggest you all do the same. Buy some gold coins, too. Our job is to stir up as much sh*t as possible, and then hightail to the hills to let the morons kill each other until our hour comes 'round at last.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if that will be the best strategy if the alluded scenario does transpire. Sometimes the safest place to be is in the eye of the tornado. However, if you're going to hole up in a cabin in the woods, you'd better have plenty of ordnance and plenty of people besides yourself capable of aiming the business end thereof - the missus and the rugrats don't count. Da Homeys and the mestizo bandidos know that in a time of scarcity the best policy is not to rifle the grasshoppers but rather the ants - AND THAT MEANS YOU, WHITEY! But at least it's apparent that the wheels upstairs are indeed turning. You may survive the rest of us inert and improvident sluggards and dullards yet, my honored popish friend.
2004-01-21 05:59 | User Profile
So the US economy will match the coming demographics. Third world econ for a third world population and the resultant third world military and the resultant effects of that. That can't be much of a surprise. We are importing the bottom of the barrel workers, the ones the third world doesnt want, of course the third world is going to have a better work force. I believe Amren has an article about how US mexicans score significantly lower on IQ tests than Mexican Mexicans. Better if this happens quicker, perhaps it will cause things to break before the demographics get to nasty to recover from (by whatever means).