Blog

While Verizon workers toil without a contract, a report issued jointly today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy shows that it’s not just its workers the company is short-changing; it’s all of the American people. For the last three years, Verizon has paid less than zero taxes. That’s right—through the use of corporate loopholes, Verizon has actually “made” money through its tax filings, according to the report, “Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers.”

One area where Verizon didn’t mind paying out? CEO compensation—to the tune of $18.1 million last year.

And Verizon is hardly alone: 29 other corporations listed on the Fortune 500, according to the report, paid either no taxes, or, like Verizon, enjoy a negative tax balance on their filings for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Other household names on that ignominious list include Honeywell International, DuPont, Boeing, Mattel, Duke Energy and Wells Fargo (which also benefited from the bank bailout).

As report authors Robert McIntyre, Matthew Gardner, Rebecca Wilkins and Richard Phillips write: (more…)

So the calvary’s here huh? The Tea Party is going to save the day right? I’ve heard those terms used by others in referring to the Tea Party and the new blood in our political leadership. Congratulations, you wanted it and now you got it.

What you got is leadership that would turn Medicare and programs like it into something totally different. Starting in 2022 their plan would no longer directly pay bills for senior citizens in the Medicare program. Instead, recipients would choose a plan from a list of private providers, which the federal government would subsidize. This proposed plan by Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin, is very similar to what is affectionately called “Obamacare” by the Paul Ryan types and Tea Party types in that it would create a government subsidy for Americans to help them purchase healthcare.

The thing is “ObamaCare” doesn’t include senior citizens in its dynamic but does include younger healthier Americans who would be more apt to afford it. When it comes to Ryan’s bill, the older population is naturally more illness prone and therefore their healthcare would cost more. The government can provide subsidies of  $1000 a month for healthcare, but if a senior citizen’s healthcare costs him $3000 a month and his retirement and social security totals a fixed amount of $900 a month, there’s nothing to live off of.

Talk about killing grandma. Oh, by the way, this same leadership is the one that balks at increasing taxes on the wealthy. As a matter of fact, Ryan’s bill which passed on the 15^th of April in the Tea Party/Republican controlled Congress would lower the top income and corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%. What an outrage at this time of such a large deficit right? (more…)

Post this to your Facebook page!

By David Callahan
Co-founder of Demos

Many Americans were appalled when it was revealed recently that General Electric would pay no taxes for 2010, despite U.S. profits of over $5 billion.

But I doubt that there is a single top tax attorney or chief financial officer in the country who was all that surprised. You see, these people are denizens of Loophole Land – a very different place than W-2ville where most Americans live.

In Loophole Land, nothing is quite as it seems. Yes, there is a top corporate tax rate of 35 percent, but it is well understood that nobody actually pays that. On the contrary, many companies pay nothing at all.

How can this be?

For starters, Loophole Land has no national borders and so it is easy to shift money around in ways that avoid taxes. General Electric works all over the world, and under tax law, it isn’t taxed on its foreign profits as long as it says that it is reinvesting those profits abroad. Many companies become expert at shifting profits abroad to foreign subsidiaries in low-tax or no-tax nations. In 2008, Goldman Sachs, had 29 subsidiaries located in offshore tax havens and reported profits of over $2 billion. It paid federal taxes of just $14 million on those profits. (more…)

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

Republicans concocted death panels in an attempt to terrify Americans about health care reform, then propagated the lie because they wanted insurance corporations to profit from illness and injury unfettered.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed anyway, but now the GOP has announced that it plans to kill the reform, and Medicaid and Medicare too.

In one fell swoop, Republicans would foreclose on Americas’ long-held and cherished expectation that they’ll receive health coverage from their government in their old age, impoverishment or infirmity. For the elderly, poor, unemployed, disabled and juvenile who can’t afford insurance, the GOP offers no death panels, just death from lack of care.

U.S. Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, disclosed the GOP scheme to massacre Medicare and Medicaid. Instead of the government directly paying for medical services for the elderly and impoverished, Republicans would shift costs to states and the elderly. Under their plan, instead of Medicare, the federal government would give seniors an unspecified amount of money toward the cost of premiums for private health insurance. Also, instead of Medicaid, the GOP would give states some money to help pay for insurance for the poor, which includes nursing home care for the elderly. States and the elderly then would be stuck paying insurance costs above the amount provided by the federal government.

Ryan and his GOP gang transfer medical costs to the elderly and impoverished to compensate for federal revenues lost when they slash income taxes levied on the rich and corporations by an additional 30 percent.

The GOP message to the rich and to corporations: keep your tax break and take another 30 percent. The GOP message to the middle class: pay more and lose your safety net.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The founders of the United States intended the government to serve the people not prostrate itself to the privileged. The signers of the Declaration of Independence and framers of the U.S. Constitution discarded the doctrine of the divine right of kings, the idea that monarchs derived their authority from God and thus were not subject to the will of the governed.

Instead, the founders and framers determined that rich and poor, men and monarchs are equal, that they possess inalienable rights and that the function of government is to secure those rights. Their vision of government is an organization operating with the consent of the people to protect the people. That is, to protect their inalienable rights, to protect them from inequities, to protect them from internal and external threats.

The GOP budget is a manifestation of a very different government philosophy. It subjugates the people to the divine right of corporations and the rich.

If the wealthy and corporations had paid their share of federal income taxes over the past 30 years since successive Republican presidents began cutting them, the federal deficit would be relative peanuts, if it existed at all. If the wealthy paid their share of social security taxes, the program would not face shortfalls after 2036. If corporations and the wealthy paid federal income taxes at the rates they did during the presidencies of Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower or Richard Nixon, no one would be talking about killing off Medicaid and Medicare.

The nation’s largest corporation, General Electric, accumulated $26 billion in American profits over the past five years, while demanding $4.1 billion in “rebates” from the IRS and paying absolutely no federal income taxes last year. Two out of three U.S. corporations paid no income taxes from 1998 through 2005. The effective tax rate for the wealthy – the rate after loopholes and special deals — is nine points lower than that paid by the typical worker.

Still, Paul Ryan and his Republican crew insist that corporations and the rich are paying too much and demand that they pay an official rate of 25 percent instead of 35 percent. Because that will mean billions in lost revenue, the GOP slashes programs that protect the masses in the middle, education, health care reform, veterans benefits, public transportation, health and safety regulation, food and import inspection, Medicaid and Medicare. The GOP guts government for the people.

Because of those huge tax cuts for the rich and corporations, the Republican budget doesn’t even end the deficit until 2040. In fact, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined the tax cuts would increase the deficit’s share of the economy for the first 10 years of implementation. Under the GOP plan, public debt would rise to 70 percent of GDP by 2022.  If the government maintained its current tax and spending levels, the debt would grow to 67 percent of GDP by 2022.

The GOP budget shows Republicans believe corporations and the rich are super citizens with divine rights, while the vast majority of the nation’s citizens, the middle class, are lesser beings who are to be taxed but not protected by their government.

Many of these citizens – the elderly, the poor, the disabled – won’t be able to afford health insurance under the GOP scheme. They’ve paid taxes all their lives to support programs like Medicare. Now, the GOP intends to rip that out from under them, to take away the protection that they believed their government — government for the people — would provide.

The GOP announced this week that it believes new tax cuts for the rich and corporations are more important than Medicare and Medicaid, more important than the lives of vulnerable Americans who will die for lack of health insurance to pay for care.

***

Leo W. Gerard also is a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Committee and chairs the labor federation’s Public Policy Committee. President Barack Obama recently appointed him to the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. He serves as co-chairman of the BlueGreen Alliance and on the boards of the Apollo Alliance, Campaign for America’s Future and the Economic Policy Institute.  He is a member of the IMF and ICEM global labor federations and was instrumental in creating Workers Uniting, the first global union.

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

The nation’s greedy corporations and insatiable wealthy are fattening themselves on workers. There’s no trickle down. It’s the opposite; the rich have been sucking the economic lifeblood from the middle class for decades.

When reckless Wall Street banksters get taxpayer-funded bailouts, billionaires get tax breaks and gigantic corporations like GE and Bank of America pay absolutely no federal income taxes, they’re getting for free the very public services that enable them to make massive profits in this country – the courts, the roads, the trade regulators, the patent enforcement.

The middle class doesn’t get those big time special deals and loopholes. Workers pay their taxes. As a result, it’s workers footing the bill for the government services that enrich the rich. Greedy corporations, their CEOs and the right-wing politicians they buy with tens of millions in campaign cash are freeloaders.

It’s time workers stood up to the freeloaders. Join Monday’s We Are One rallies. These demonstrations across the country by religious groups, social justice organizations and labor unions will illustrate that the middle class is mad as hell and not going to take trickster economics anymore.

It’s time for greedy corporations and the insatiable rich to pay their fair share. It’s time to stop cuts to the government programs most treasured by and vital to the middle class and the vulnerable in this country – education, public transportation, Social Security. It’s time to stop right-wing attempts to terminate democratic rights like collective bargaining and voting without harassment. It’s time for the middle class to stop paying for everything and for the insatiable rich and greedy corporations to start sharing the sacrifice required to recover from the economic crisis caused by reckless gambling by Wall Street bankster corporations.

March for your rights Monday. March for the middle class facing record rates of foreclosure, unemployment, child poverty, and loss of opportunity as country club conservatives cut off college loans and Head Start.  March for the right of college students to register and vote in the towns where they study. March for the right of workers to band together, elect representatives and bargain with employers for better pay and working conditions. March for the right of the people to insist that corporations pay at least the same rate of taxes as workers do. March to end tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent who have now acquired more wealth than all the workers in the bottom 90 percent.

Greedy corporations, the insatiable wealthy and their purchased politicians have for three decades skewed public policy to enrich themselves while pushing down wages and benefits for the middle class.

From 1947 to 1975, a time of strong unionization in the workforce, real wages of average workers increased with productivity. The 75 percent rise in productivity and the nearly matching rise in wages gave the United States the largest, most vibrant middle class in the history of the world.

Since 1978, productivity grew 86 percent, but compensation for workers grew only 37 percent, and if the cost of benefits, mostly uncontrolled health insurance increases, is removed, the real average  hourly wage did not rise for 35 years, according to Alan S. Blinder, professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Here’s how it works: The nation’s largest corporation, General Electric, earns tens of billions in profits from the labor of its workers but refuses to share the benefits with them. GE is expected to demand that its 15,000 unionized U.S. workers accept benefit cuts. So they’ll pay more for their retirement and health care and have less money to live and to pay taxes.

Meanwhile, the share of national income captured by the richest one percent rose from 8 percent in 1975 to 23.5 percent in 2005.

Under Dwight D. Eisenhower, the president in the 1950s, the nation’s richest paid an effective tax rate of 70 percent after loopholes. Today, it’s 16 percent – significantly lower than the 25 percent forked over through payroll deductions by individual workers earning between $34,500 and $83,600 a year.

That resulted from deliberate policy changes. Beginning with Ronald Reagan, country club conservatives cut taxes for the wealthy, while at the same time ending routine minimum wage increases and undermining the bargaining rights of labor.

The changes were made by increasingly wealthy politicians increasingly influenced by lobbyists. For example, 60 percent of the freshmen in the U.S. Senate and 40 percent in the U.S. House are millionaires. By contrast, only 1 percent of Americans are worth more than $1 million.

Compounding that is corporate influence, which worsened last year when the U.S. Supreme Court enabled corporations to donate unlimited money in secret. The upshot is corporations like General Electric, spending millions to lobby and paying zero in federal income taxes. GE spent $200 million to lobby for loopholes in the federal income tax code over the past decade, made $26 billion in American profits over the past five years, and not only paid absolutely no federal income taxes, but got itself a $4.1 billion rebate from the IRS.

That is far from an anomaly. Two out of every three U.S. corporations paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. And the situation hasn’t improved since then. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has written repeatedly about tax avoidance by the likes of Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, Wall Street banks that former President George W. Bush handed hundreds of billions in bail out dollars.

Bank of America got a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS last year, even though it made $4.4 billion. Goldman paid only 1.1 percent in federal income taxes on its $2.3 billion in profits. New York Times reporter David Kocieniewski wrote in his story about GE that such tax dodging by corporations has resulted in a significant decline in federal revenue from corporations –  from 30 percent in the 1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.

Tax avoidance is a virtuous cycle for greedy corporations and the wealthy. They pay less in taxes, then have more money to lobby politicians to lower their taxes. In fact, it’s gotten so bad that lawmakers are hiring lobbyists right from their K Street firms to write legislation. And Congress’ new right wingers are increasing this trend. Since they took office in January, nearly half of the 150 former lobbyists working in top policy jobs in Congress were hired.

For workers, however, it’s a vicious cycle. They’re forced to pay the taxes shirked by greedy corporations and the insatiable wealthy. And they’re forced to suffer service cut backs.

Right now, right wingers are trying to cut $51.5 billion from the federal budget – demanding elimination of programs essential to the middle class and poor such as subsidies for home heating for the impoverished. But if the wealthy paid their share, say hedge fund manager John Paulson who earned $2.4 million an hour in 2010 – then those cuts would be unnecessary because the federal government would have an extra $69.5 billion in revenue.

Forty-three years ago on April 4 Martin Luther King was assassinated after standing up for the right of public sector workers in Memphis, Tenn. to negotiate for better lives.

In his last speech, Rev. King said God had allowed him to go to the mountaintop where he’d looked over and seen the Promised Land. “I may not get there with you,” he cautioned, “But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people will get to the Promised Land.”

Greedy corporations and the wealthy have made it to the mountain top. And they’re shoving American workers down the hillside to ensure the Promised Land is reserved only for the richest.

The promise of America democracy is equality. Equal rights, equal treatment under the law, equal opportunity. Freeloading by greedy corporations and the insatiable wealthy is denying those promises to the vast majority of citizens. Americans must unify and march to wrest back those rights and secure the American Dream for all.

Take a first step. Join one of the 600 We Are One demonstrations on April 4.

***

Leo W. Gerard also is a member of the AFL-CIO Executive Committee and chairs the labor federation’s Public Policy Committee. President Barack Obama recently appointed him to the President’s Advisory Committee on Trade Policy and Negotiations. He serves as co-chairman of the BlueGreen Alliance and on the boards of the Apollo Alliance, Campaign for America’s Future and the Economic Policy Institute.  He is a member of the IMF and ICEM global labor federations and was instrumental in creating Workers Uniting, the first global union.

By Sen. Bernie Sanders
Independent U.S. Senator from Vermont

Republicans in the House want to balance the budget by denying more than 200,000 little children the opportunity to receive an early education through Head Start; reducing or eliminating Pell Grants for 9.4 million college students; eliminating primary health care services to 11 million Americans; and delaying Social Security benefits to half a million eligible Americans, among other things.

Before Congress cuts funding for Head Start, Social Security, and financial aid for college, we have got to make sure that large, profitable corporations are paying their fair share of taxes.

At a time when we have a $14.2 trillion national debt and a $1.6 trillion federal deficit, it is unacceptable that Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Bank of America, Chevron, Boeing, and other large, profitable corporations are not only avoiding paying any federal income taxes at all but have actually received huge refund checks from the IRS.

Loopholes in the tax code, offshore tax havens, tax breaks to companies that export American jobs to China, and other tax breaks have allowed giant corporations in America to receive billions in refunds from the IRS.

Meanwhile corporations are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash on hand, and big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Federal Reserve.

In 2005, one out of four large corporations paid no income taxes at all even though they collected $1.1 trillion in revenue over that one-year period. (more…)

Harold Meyerson

By Harold Meyerson
Editor-at-Large of The American Prospect

Suppose the economy recovers but everyone still feels lousy.

It could happen. In fact, it’s happening right now.

Our current recovery, alas, is different from all previous recoveries that America has experienced since the end of World War II. The earlier ones were marked by wage increases. As the economy picked up and more revenue started flowing to business, those businesses shared the revenue with their employees. Mark Whitehouse of the Wall Street Journal looked at how businesses were dividing up the pie 18 months into every previous recovery since 1947 and found that 58 percent of their increases in productivity trickled down to their workers in increased wages.

This time around, the numbers are starkly different. Productivity increased 5.2 percent from the recovery’s start in mid-2009 to the end of 2010, he found, but wages rose by a minuscule 0.3 percent. That means just 6 percent of productivity gains have gone to our newly more-productive workers.

Where is the other 94 percent going? To profits, which have been increasing at a record clip for the past three quarters. To funds on the corporations’ balance sheets, which the Federal Reserve calculates at nearly $2 trillion. To shareholders. To the companies’ stock buybacks. (more…)

By Robert Reich
Former U.S. Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley

Can we please agree that in the real world corporations exist for one purpose, and one purpose only: to make as much money as possible, which means cutting costs as much as possible?

The New York Times reports that GE marketed the Mark 1 boiling water reactors, used in TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, as cheaper to build than other reactors because they used a comparatively smaller and less expensive containment structure.

Yet American safety officials have long thought the smaller design more vulnerable to explosion and rupture in emergencies than competing designs. (By the way, the same design is used in 23 American nuclear reactors at 16 plants.)

In the mid-1980s, Harold Denton, then an official with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said Mark 1 reactors had a 90 percent probability of bursting should the fuel rods overheat and melt in an accident. A follow-up report from a study group convened by the Commission concluded that “Mark 1 failure within the first few hours following core melt would appear rather likely.”

Sound familiar?

The National Commission appointed to investigate the giant oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico last April recently concluded that BP failed to adequately supervise Halliburton Company’s work on installing the well.

This was the case even though BP knew Halliburton lacked experience testing cement to prevent blowouts and hadn’t performed adequately before on a similar job. In short: Neither company bothered to spend the money to ensure adequate testing of the cement.

Nor did Massey Energy spend the money needed to ensure its mines were safe.

And so on.

Don’t get me wrong. No company can be expected to build a nuclear reactor, an oil well, a coal mine, or anything else that’s one hundred percent safe under all circumstances. The costs would be prohibitive. It’s unreasonable to expect corporations to totally guard against small chances of every potential accident.

Inevitably there’s a tradeoff. Reasonable precaution means spending as much on safety as the probability of a particular disaster occurring, multiplied by its likely harm to human beings and the environment if it does occur.

Here’s the problem. Profit-making corporations have every incentive to underestimate these probabilities and lowball the likely harms.

This is why it’s necessary to have such things as government regulators, why regulators must be independent of the industries they regulate, and why regulators need enough resources to enforce the regulations.

It’s also why the public in every nation is endangered if the political clout of its biggest corporations — BP, Halliburton, Massey, G.E., or TEPCO — grows too large.

***

Robert Reich served as the nation’s 22nd Secretary of Labor and now is a professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future,is now in bookstores. His earlier books, Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America and Supercapitalism, are out in paperback. For copies of his articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.RobertReich.org.

***

Cross-posted from Robert Reich’s Blog. 

 

Peter Navarro and Leo Gerard

 

Leo W. Gerard: Your chapter in the new book, “Benchmarking the Advantages Foreign Nationals Provide their Manufacturers,” describes in devastating detail how China in particular, but also other major U.S. trading partners, violate international rules. The abuses you document make clear that it’s impossible for American manufactures to compete internationally. U.S. corporations responded by off-shoring manufacturing and millions of American jobs. Why does the U.S. put up with this unfair trade?

 

Peter Navarro: The Bush administration put up with unfair trade because it was distracted by the war on terrorism and because of its blind ideological commitment to free trade, regardless of the unfair trading practices adopted by our trading partners. The Obama administration is putting up with unfair trade with China because it is under the mistaken notion that it’s more important for China to keep financing our budget and trade deficits than for this country to crack down on unfair Chinese trade practices so that we can restore our manufacturing base. Consumers — oblivious to the destruction that the Chinese have done to our job base — have put up with this unfair trade because in the short run they get cheap Chinese goods. The National Association of Manufacturers puts up with this unfair trade because many of its members have offshored their production to China and now find it in their interests to oppose trade reform. What is critical in the politics of this whole situation is that the American people clearly understand how unfair trade practices translate into fewer jobs and lower wages and a bleak future. Only when the American people see the chessboard more clearly will our politicians act appropriately.

 

Gerard: The result of decades of losses is, as you put, the “hollowing out” of the U.S. economy. It depressed wages, lowered the standard of living, created recession conditions in the Midwest – even before the current great recession. Typically, in the mainstream media, the loss of industry routinely is blamed on unions seeking what we believe is decent wages and benefits. Your chapter provides a shockingly different story. Why don’t we hear that?

 

Navarro: Labor unions have become a common “whipping boy” for the recessionary ills that have afflicted the US economy off and on for several decades now. One problem is that much of the financial press has a strong, antiunion bias. A second problem is the far too parochial nature of American politics. Far too many Americans — and I include many members of the American press corps here as well — simply don’t understand some of the complexities of the global economic environment that have helped trigger the US recession. The case of Chinese currency manipulation is a perfect example. Very few politicians or pundits — much less the American people — understand how China pegs the yuan to the dollar and how an undervalued yuan acts as a subsidy to Chinese exports to the United States and a tax on US exports to China. Nor do these politicians and pundits understand how this currency manipulation affects the stock market or interest rates or the rate of off shoring. Because the effects of globalization are complex, labor unions make an easy target.

 

Gerard:  For those unfamiliar, because it isn’t covered much, would you explain how China can be both a mercantilist and a protectionist state, and the effect of that economic behavior on the U.S.?

 

Navarro:  In thinking about the issue of trade reform, it is important to distinguish between mercantilism and protectionism. A mercantilist state uses tools like illegal export subsidies and currency manipulation to increase its level of exports to other nations at the expense of jobs and income in those nations. In contrast, a protectionist state uses unfair trade practices like quotas, forced technology transfer, and regulatory barriers to prevent foreign competitors from entering its markets. As a practical matter, any state that engages in protectionism likely also is a mercantilist as well. In the world arena today, China is the reigning Emperor of both mercantilist and protectionist practices. The scope of what this “beggar thy neighbor” country does in direct violation of the World Trade Organization rules is breathtaking, and it is precisely these mercantilist and protectionist practices that I outline in my chapter in the book.

 

Gerard:  Can we talk for a minute about currency manipulation because this is something you hear a lot, but, again, it’s rarely explained. You provide great descriptions in the chapter of why China’s undervaluing the yuan “makes exports cheap and imports dear,” as you put it. Can you give us a primer here?

 

Navarro:  As a practical matter, any given country can choose between a fixed or a floating exchange rate system for its currency. In a floating exchange rate system, the value of the country’s currency is determined by supply and demand conditions in the international market. Currencies that float and trade freely everyday include the dollar, the euro, the yen, and the Swiss franc.

In fact, floating exchange rates represent a crucial element of any free trade regime that benefits all nations. The reason is that floating exchange rates act as a natural market mechanism to prevent any trade imbalances between countries. If one country like the United States runs a trade deficit with another country like China, the value of its currency should fall relative to the other currency. A falling currency will boost that country’s exports because its exports will be cheaper to sell while it will reduce its imports, because imports will become more expensive. In this way, the trade will come back into balance in a floating exchange rate system.

The problem is that some countries like China embrace the alternative of a fixed exchange rate system. In China’s case, it tightly pegs the value of the yuan to the US dollar. This means that no matter how big the US-Chinese trade imbalance, the dollar can’t fall relative to the yuan and bring trade back into balance. 

China pegs the yuan to the dollar in a very complex process, but in a simplified example you can think of it this way. American consumers go into Wal-Mart and buy a bunch of cheap Chinese goods with American dollars, and these dollars are exported over to China. Ordinarily, the surplus dollars would put downward pressure on the value of the dollar relative to the yuan. However, to reduce these pressures the Chinese government sweeps up these dollars in a “sterilization” process which involves selling bonds to Chinese citizens at interest rates of a little more than 4%. China then turns around and uses these sterilized dollars to buy US government bonds at interest rates of less than 2% — thereby losing a considerable amount of money on the deal. The Chinese government is willing to incur these losses, however, because by buying US government bonds, it bids the value of the dollar back up so that China can maintain its dollar-yuan peg. At the same time, China’s purchase of US government securities also helps lower US interest and mortgage rates — a kind of financial heroin that makes America feel good even as China steals its jobs and destroys its manufacturing base using this currency manipulation as a weapon.

 

Gerard:  I think that after the Olympics were held in China, a lot of people became aware of the high level of pollution there. So while American companies must pay decent wages and control pollution, Chinese companies don’t. But you detail much more insidious internationally illegal competitive advantages China has over the U.S. One of those is forced technology transfer. Can you describe that?

 

Navarro:  While currency manipulation and China’s high levels of illegal export subsidies rank as two of its most important mercantilist practices, China’s forced technology transfer represents one of its most insidious protectionist practices. The idea of forced technology transfer is that if a company like General Motors and General Electric or Intel wants to set up production facilities in China and sail into the Chinese market, it must surrender some of its technology to the Chinese in order to do this. This practice is, of course, one of the most blatant violations of the World Trade Organization. However, American corporate executives rarely challenge this practice because they are all too eager to play in the Chinese market. Over time, however, the practice of forced technology transfer in China is a one-way ticket to the destruction of the American technology base. If in the short run, American corporations surrender their technologies to China, eventually, over the longer run, China won’t need these American corporations, and they will be quite ironically run out of China by their own evolved technologies.

 

Gerard:  You describe virtually all of these practices as being illegal under international treaties or World Trade Organization rules. People who are so hot for free trade must know that China is violating these rules. Is it correct to say that the U.S. simply is not demanding enforcement of the regulations to its own detriment?

 

Navarro: That is absolutely correct — the US government has failed abysmally at using the tools at its disposal to crack down on Chinese mercantilism and protectionism. The Bush administration failed to do so because of its preoccupation with the war on terror and its misguided ideology. The Obama administration is even more culpable because it fully understands the damage that China is doing to the American economy. However, the President, the Treasury Secretary, and the United States Secretary of State have all decided that it’s more important that China continue to finance our budget and trade deficits than it is to challenge China on trade reform. The problem with this strategy is that it guarantees the long run secular decline of the American economy, which will come as an inevitable result of a further erosion of America’s already weakened manufacturing base.

 ***

Peter Navarro is a best-selling author and CNBC contributor. His most recent book is “Always a Winner: Finding Your Competitive Advantage in and Up and Down Economy.” Mr. Navarro is also the author of the worldwide bestseller, “The Coming China Wars,” and the bestselling investment book, “If It Rains in Brazil, Buy Starbucks.” He also wrote the management book, “The Well-Timed Strategy.” With a Ph.D in economics from Harvard, Mr. Navarro is a business professor at the Merage School of Business at the University of California, Irvine. He is an expert in macroeconomic analysis of the business environment and financial markets. He has been featured on “60 Minutes,” and his articles have appeared in publications such as “Business Week,” “The New York Times,” and “The Wall Street Journal.”