Blog

George Lakoff, author of Political Mind and Don’t Think of An Elephant, argues that when liberals attack extreme conservative proposals like denying reimbursement for birth control, they actually help convince people that the position is right, not wrong. He says that repetition of a position makes human minds affirm it and work harder to defend it.

That may be going on when progressives attack so-called “free trade.” It just affirms the idea of “free trade” as legitimate and makes “free traders” fight harder to defend their position. The free traders persuade by repeating the appealing sounding term “free trade” and asking, “How can you be against anything that makes the market more free and brings us less expensive things? What’s free is always good!”

By contrast, other trade experts and professionals and I have been trying to convince progressives that our trade issue is now mostly a matter of patriotism – that there’s a trade war going on and we’re losing it badly! Our trillions of dollars of trade deficits and borrowing, plus lost U.S. manufacturers and jobs is proof we’re losing badly.

In a war, we must defend America as our highest priority. In this trade war, we haven’t fought back to assure our nation’s economic security!

I was just given a key new statistic yesterday. The trade data company, PIERS, tracks imports into the United States by companies and individuals. Their database  now lists 3 million foreign entities that export to the U.S. That’s 3 million exporters fighting for a part of our market – the world’s biggest and richest.

Is it any wonder that our trade deficits keep increasing and the number of U.S. producers and jobs keeps dropping? And there are many more foreign suppliers entering this trade war from India, Brazil, South. Korea, etc.

There’s an answer: The U.S. must return to a policy of total balanced trade with the rest of the world. That would mean a cut of 25% in annual imports during a phase-in period. We’d still be the world’s biggest importer – so that’s not protectionism at all! We should enact the legislation now and be ready for full adoption and enforcement as of Jan. 1, 2013.

The place where the decision must be made is first at the U.S. Jobs and Competitiveness Council and then by the President. He’ll be a very tough “sell” in an election year and Wall Street and  big  banks will resist despite their past bail-outs.

***

Kenneth N, Davis, Jr. also is a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Commerce/International and former IBM vice president and chief financial officer.

***

To submit a blog to Free Speech Zone, e-mail it to bstack@usw.org. Keep it to 250 words or fewer. You MUST include your full name, hometown, and state. You may attach a photograph of yourself. Please include a phone number. This WILL NOT be published. Posting any given blog is within the discretion of the USW. No blog using foul language (this is a family site), false information (we don’t want to get sued), or unnecessary personal attacks (again, we don’t want to get sued) will be used. Wait a reasonable period of time, then blog again! This is a Free Speech Zone.

Last week, President Obama declared: “America has its groove back! The recovery is moving ahead!” Oh, really? Will he support balanced trade legislation to cut the huge flow of imports that cause our costly trade deficits and job losses? And will he withdraw his premature backing of another NAFTA-like “free trade” deal, the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”)? If he will, he can reassure the nation that he’ll solve our trade problems and recover millions of lost jobs. He should listen again to his friend, Warren Buffett, “The Oracle of Omaha,” this time on the extreme danger of our ever-growing trade deficits.

Ever since late 2003, Mr. Buffett has warned of severe trouble coming, first in a Fortune Magazine lead article headed “Our trade deficits are selling America out from under us. We’ve got to stop it now, and here’s how to do it!” He presented a strong case for returning to a national policy of earning as much as we spend in world trade. If we don’t, he said, we’ll be forced into ruinous debt and borrowing – exactly what happened when his advice was ignored in Washington

American businessman and investor Warren Buffett was quoted in the Associated Press, Jan.20, 2006: “The U.S trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either　the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to political turmoil.”

And then in 2008, he produced a YouTube video to tell the story of “Thriftville” vs. “Squanderville” as in his landmark Fortune article. Here’s a link to the video. (more…)

China is very, very “business-friendly.” Corporate conservatives lecture us that we should be more “business-friendly,” in order to “compete” with China. They say we need to cut wages and benefits, work longer hours, get rid of overtime and sick pay — even lunch breaks. They say we should shed unions, get rid of environmental and safety regulations, gut government services, and especially, especially, especially we should cut taxes. But America can never be “business-friendly” enough to compete with China, and here is why.

Workers In Dormatories, 12 To A Room, Rousted At Midnight

China is very, very “business friendly.” Recent stories about Apple’s manufacturing contractors have started to reveal just how “business-friendly” China is. Recently the NY Times’ Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher exposed the conditions of workers at Apple’s Chinese suppliers, in How the U.S. Lost Out on iPhone Work. They describe how China’s massive government subsidies and exploitation of workers mean, as Steve Jobs told President Obama, “Those jobs aren’t coming back.”

One former executive described how the company relied upon a Chinese factory to revamp iPhone manufacturing just weeks before the device was due on shelves. … New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight.A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company’s dormitories, according to the executive. Each employee was given a biscuit and a cup of tea, guided to a workstation and within half an hour started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into beveled frames. Within 96 hours, the plant was producing over 10,000 iPhones a day.

“The speed and flexibility is breathtaking,” the executive said. “There’s no American plant that can match that.”

Right. No American plant can roust workers out of nearby dorms at midnight to force them onto a 12-hour shift. And the corporate conservatives criticize America for this, not China, saying we are not “business-friendly” enough to compete. This is because we are a place where We, the People still have at least some say in how things are done. (Don’t we?) Later in the story,

The first truckloads of cut glass arrived at Foxconn City in the dead of night, according to the former Apple executive. That’s when managers woke thousands of workers, who crawled into their uniforms — white and black shirts for men, red for women — and quickly lined up to assemble, by hand, the phones.

“Business-friendly” = living 12 to a room in dorms, rousted out of bed at midnight for 12-hour shifts, working in a plant paid for by the government, using a neurotoxin cleaner that harms people but enables more production for companies like Apple. (more…)

Last week several groups, including the United Steelworkers, petitioned the federal government to whack the latest trade mole – illegally traded auto parts from China.

With President Obama announcing creation of a new trade enforcement unit in his State of the Union Address, the feds probably will investigate. But even if they whack down the auto parts mole, experience has shown a new mole will pop up.

Mole-by-mole trade enforcement isn’t the solution to America’s massive trade deficit. Although conservative candidates revel in ridiculing Western Europe, America could learn crucial economic lessons from Germany, which doesn’t rely on Whack-a-Mole and maintains trade surpluses, including one with China in auto parts.

The Steelworkers – along with the United Auto Workers, the Alliance for American Manufacturing and Campaign for America’s Future – explained why the federal government must smack down the latest trade problem that has raised its ugly head.

China and several other countries promote their auto parts manufacturers by providing subsidies and engaging in additional practices banned by the World Trade Organization (WTO). As a result, the United States imports more auto parts than it produces, a situation that kills manufacturers and manufacturing jobs here.  For example, over the past 11 years, as the U.S. auto parts trade deficit increased by 867 percent, the Unites States lost 45 percent of its auto parts jobs – a total of 419,000.

The reason the groups sought action against China specifically is that its exports of auto parts to the United States have increased faster in the past three years than any other country’s and China supports its auto parts industry in ways that violate its commitments to the WTO.

For example, China provided $27.5 billion in subsidies to its auto parts industry between 2001 and 2010. It’s fine with the WTO if countries subsidize industries that sell their products domestically.  But it forbids subsidies for exported products because that distorts the free market, wrongly destroying jobs and industries in the countries that buy those artificially low priced goods.

Beijing also aggressively limited import of American-made auto parts. This is hardly startling. In December, China imposed steep tariffs on imported American-made sports utility vehicles and other large cars. And the WTO affirmed last week that China violated its trade commitments by restricting export of key raw materials. Earlier, the WTO supported President Obama’s imposition of tariffs on tires imported from China because Beijing had violated international trade rules.

China has prospered by breaking the rules. Electronics manufacturing is a good example. In a story about Apple’s experience, The New York Times described how America lost these jobs to China. Worker wages, while achingly low in China, were not the lure. And they were not the issue for Apple, a company that makes $400,000 in profit for every worker. It was a combination of other factors including the Asian supply chain and Chinese subsidies. (more…)

Around the middle of this month, after all the data is in and counted, the United States Census Bureau will announce our 2011 trade deficit with China, and it will be the largest trade deficit any country has ever had with another country in the history of the world. I guess it’s good to be number one in something! Based on current annualized data — we already have the numbers though November — it will total $297 billion. This is an amazing number, far larger than the gross domestic product of most U.S. states. By way of example, the gross domestic product of Indiana in 2010 was $245 billion, the gross domestic product of Connecticut was $211 billion, and the GDP of Nebraska was $80 billion. It’s as if we’ve taken the economic activity of a few of our states and turned it over to China.

Almost all of this trade deficit is in manufactured goods, and it is getting worse every year. It is not just commodity items like steel or paper (though these products are critical to our economy in themselves), or what might be considered low-end products like textiles and toys. It is also high technology products. In fact, the high-tech trade deficit with China for 2011 will be about $109 billion, another all-time record. This is for products like information and communications equipment, opto-electronics, weapons, and advanced materials.

The trade deficit is terrible and has a devastating effect throughout our economy, and the accompanying employment effects are even worse. The National Science Board reported last week that we have lost 28% of our high-tech manufacturing jobs during the last decade. Overall, manufacturing employment has dropped about 33% during the same period.

Along with the trade deficit comes striking symbolic losses such as the fact that the Martin Luther King statue on the Washington Mall was made in China, the glass in the rebuilt World Trade Center in New York will come from China and the steel will come from Germany, and the much exalted iPad — most desired Christmas gift of 2011 — is made in China.

Why is this happening? There are a large number of reasons that are coming together in a very bad mix for the U.S., but three are the most important: (1) Many other countries in the world have a sustained and pre-meditated plan to grab part of our manufacturing base and lure it to their countries. For example, they provide enormous subsidies to manufacturers to locate there, and many companies have had no choice but to accept the free cash; (2) The U.S. has no sustained response. We do not have a manufacturing policy or a manufacturing strategy. We hope the market and American innovation will solve all the problems, but they won’t, and that’s been evident for many years now; and (3) We enable China to pursue a mercantilist, protectionist policy of currency manipulation, which has the effect of making their goods very cheap in the United States and every third country market, and our goods so expensive they won’t sell. (more…)

As the Occupy Wall Street movement spread across the nation last week, politicians in D.C. flipped the bird at protesters – including those camping in Washington’s McPherson Square.

Here’s how: While occupiers sought political focus on the unemployment, impoverishment and foreclosures suffered by the nation’s non-rich 99 percent, politicians considered three major pieces of legislation and passed only the one that will help the wealthiest 1 percent and hurt the remaining 99 percent.

Senate Republicans murdered-by-filibuster the American Jobs Act, which would surtax the 1 percent to provide jobs for the 99 percent. The Senate did pass the currency manipulation bill, but House GOP leaders refused to schedule a vote on the measure that would protect jobs for the 99 percent by punishing countries that undervalue their currencies to artificially lower prices on their exports.

By contrast, both houses of Congress adopted the so-called Free Trade Agreements with Panama, Colombia and Korea, which will, just like their predecessor NAFTA, destroy jobs held by the 99 percent.

It’s incredible. Inexplicable. Inexcusable. In a country where joblessness is a painful 9.1 percent. Where one in five children lives in poverty. Where foreclosures rose again last month. Where a whole movement is growing to protest the appeasement of the rich at the cost of the middle class. In that place, Congress chose to walk backwards. It didn’t take two steps forward – which it could have by passing the currency bill and jobs act. No. It just took a giant step backward by embracing job-killing trade agreements.

It all forces the 99 percent to demand even more loudly: Where’s the jobs?

WHERE’S THE JOBS? (more…)

When GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt was appointed to head his administration’s competitiveness council, President Barack Obama said, “We think GE has something to teach businesses all across America.”

Even in the summer heat, that’s a bone-chilling thought to an anxious cross-section of employees from engineers all the way down to the janitorial staffs who still take pride in being part of GE’s X-ray business division in Waukesha, Wis.

GE announced on Aug. 22 that it would close its X-ray division headquarters in Waukesha, Wis. and move to China. Reports are that GE has hired 100 engineers to staff the China office. This is an ironic development since deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest reported from Martha’s Vinyard that President Obama and Immelt were discussing how to increase the number of engineers who graduate from U.S. colleges and universities.

Anne LeGrand, vice president and general manager of GE Healthcare Global X-ray division, told the Wall Street Journal that the company expects to develop 20 to 25 percent of the division’s products in China during the next three to five years. (more…)

With free trade agreements between the United States and Panama, South Korea and Colombia set to hit the congressional floor as soon as this month, lawmakers should check out recent polling which shows American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to trade deals that end up sending jobs overseas.

Polls have consistently shown that Americans believe the nation’s trade policy plays a major role in putting our workers behind, but the numbers are growing as the job crisis deepens and more Americans are out of work longer. A recent report from Global Trade Watch brings together in one place results of years of polling on trade and the global economy.

Here’s what people are saying about trade deals.

(more…)

By Ian Fletcher
Senior Economist, Coalition for a Prosperous America

It’s only fair to answer some of the objections to the idea of an import tariff that I and others, like possible presidential candidate Donald Trump, have recently proposed.

One common objection is simply that our trading partners would just shrug it off by increasing subsidies to their exporters.

They are constantly alert to threats against their trading position: China, for example, was recently reported in China Daily as increasing export rebates on 3,800 items “to maintain growth.”

This would, obviously, force us into an endless game of matching these moves on a country-by-country, industry-by-industry, and even product-by-product basis.

However, such subsidies by our trading partners would be restrained by the fact that they would be very expensive in the face of an American tariff. Right now, these subsidies are relatively affordable only because they don’t have to climb an American tariff wall. But if they did, their cost would increase dramatically. (more…)

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

Tragically, the government of Colombia exhibits the behavior of an addict. And, just as regrettably, the United States is co-dependent, so addicted to so called free trade that it plans to award Colombia an agreement based solely on promises.

Addicts always promise. They’ll stop, they pledge. Their co-dependents desperately want to believe, so they cooperate with the addicts’ demands.

Colombia, the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists, has pledged to try to stop the murders to persuade Congress to approve a Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Promises, promises.

And the United States has agreed to accept those promises rather than demand performance before signing an FTA. American’s Wall Street banks and multi-national corporations crave another FTA so badly they will believe anything.

When the Colombia FTA was first proposed, Congress refused to approve it because so many trade unionists are assassinated each year by the Colombian military and paramilitary forces that the murders exceed the number of unionists killed in all other countries of the world combined. In 2007, the year that former President George W. Bush completed the agreement, 39 Colombian unionists were slain.

The Colombian government knew why Congress denied approval. It could have responded four years ago by protecting trade unionists and preserving their lives. It did not.

Instead, the murders increased. In 2008, 52 Colombian trade unionists were assassinated, one a week. In 2009, the number declined by 5 to 47, but it was back up to 52 last year. Six have been slain so far this year, including Hector Orozco and Gilardo Garcia, members of the agricultural union known as Association of Peasant Workers of Tolima, who were threatened by the Colombian military just before they were assassinated. Promises, promises.

In response to the concerns expressed by Congress about the murders, the newly-proposed FTA requires Bogota to improve safeguards for workers by April 22, and to develop a plan by May 20 to enhance the capacity of regional judicial offices because the murders of trade unionists go unpunished by the Colombian government – giving the killers an impunity rate of approximately 95 percent. And by mid-June, the Colombian government promises to increase penalties for threatening workers.

The government of Colombia could have completed all of those steps four years ago. It didn’t bother.

To this point, Congress has taken the moral high ground by refusing to approve the trade deal. It said, basically, as long as Colombia continued to countenance the slaughter of its community and labor leaders, Afro-Colombians and indigenous people, America would not give it special treatment for trade purposes.

In addition, Congress recognized the FTA’s potential to devastate Colombian farmers. The FTA would speed forced displacement of Afro-Colombians and indigenous people by encouraging increased exploitation of their land by business interests, such as palm oil companies, half of which are owned by paramilitary groups. Expelling these farmers from their land would further swell Colombia’s internally-displaced population – the largest in the world at 4.3 million.

Making matters worse for Colombian farmers, the main U.S. beneficiaries of the FTA would be big agricultural companies which would be permitted to dump cheap, subsidized food stuffs into Colombia duty-free. This would result in farmers’ impoverishment and land loss because small growers would not be able to compete with the low-cost American produce.  In Haiti and Mexico, domestic food production was wiped out by similar free trade agreements. It’s likely that Colombia would follow the path of Mexico, where, as the ability to grow legitimate crops became economically impossible, farmers turned more and more to producing illicit drugs. Colombia already produces as much as 80 percent of the world’s cocaine.

Business groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, protested the refusal by Congress to approve the FTA, contending that increasing American exports and jobs was more important than protecting Colombian lives and human rights.

The Chamber’s position is not only depraved, it’s based on flawed calculations of exports and jobs. Just like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and granting China entrance to the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Colombia FTA will cost America jobs and exacerbate the U.S. trade deficit.

Previous projections by the Chamber and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that NAFTA and China’s WTO membership would improve the U.S. economy proved catastrophically off base.

When the U.S. signed NAFTA in 1993, it had a $1.7 billion trade surplus with Mexico. After the agreement, that surplus quickly morphed into a deficit, which ballooned to $64.7 billion in 2008. These annual deficits cost the U.S. 560,000 jobs between 1993 and 2004.

Similarly, the ITC predicted that the tariff reductions China offered when it entered the WTO would result in a trade deficit of $1 billion a year. Instead, between the years of 2001 and 2008, the actual result was deficits of $185 billion, and the loss or displacement of 2.3 million American jobs.

The U.S. already runs a trade deficit with Colombia. It was $1.86 billion in 2009. The Economic Policy Institute calculates that the proposed FTA with Colombia would nearly double that trade deficit by 2015, which would cost the United States another 55,000 jobs.

Frankly, the EPI calculation, which factors in effects on trade like currency manipulation, is far more credible than the ITC and Chamber reports, which ignore these issues.

Bogota wants the FTA because it believes the deal will be good for Colombian business interests. One immediate bonus, for example, is that the FTA would eliminate tariffs on 80 percent of Colombia’s exports to the U.S.

To get what it wants, the Colombian government is willing to say anything. Just like an addict. Promises, promises. The Colombian government’s past performance shows its pledges to protect workers from assassination are empty.

America must reject the role of co-dependent. It must demand the proof of performance before rewarding the government of Colombia with an FTA.

Without proof of performance, the government of Colombia will get away with murder.  It will export more of its goods – crude oil, coffee, fruit and flowers — to the U.S.  And unwitting Americans will buy more blood red Colombian roses.

***

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.