Blog

I opened up my Yahoo account when I got off work and was greeted by an article from the New York Times about how the State of California is outsourcing the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge project to China.

Outsourcing has become an everyday occurrence. Big Businesses and governments like this tell our American citizens and workers exactly what they think about them every time a project like this is sent overseas. According to the article, the California government saved around 400 million dollars by sending our jobs overseas.

This type of action should be considered criminal.

The state of California contracted a Chinese company that pays their workers less than a dollar an hour, and works them for more than 100 hours per week to steal 3000 jobs from qualified and competent American Workers. Their safety concerns were so great that they had to ship 250 consultants, government employees, and contractors to Shanghai. (more…)

Dave Johnson

By Dave Johnson
Fellow with Campaign for America’s Future

The NY Times has an editorial on trade today, Keeping Protectionism at Bay. The editorial, written by well-paid New Yorkers living far from the devastated communities of the “rust belt,” explains down to us that it is a bad thing to “protect” our jobs and our communities and our economy and our democracy. (more…)

By Roger Bybee
Milwaukee Freelance Writer

While President Obama and most Congressional Democrats are allowing the Republicans to define America’s most urgent crisis as the budget deficit, the nation’s job deficit grows more dire day by day with no clear, forceful direction coming from the White House.

The adjusted growth rate for the first quarter of the 2011 “recovery” fell to be a miniscule 1.8 percent, sharply sliding from a more vigorous 3.1 percent in the last quarter of 2010. Private-sector jobs grew by a feeble 38,000 last month. Meanwhile, the most meaningful unemployment statistic is not the commonly cited 9 percent, but the “U-6” rate which includes those who have given up seeking work and those stuck in part-time jobs while wanting to work full tim. The U-6 rate now sits at 15 percent five years into the economic crisis. (more…)

Ian Fletcher

By Ian Fletcher
Author, ‘Free Trade Doesn’t Work: What Should Replace It and Why’

Many Americans are already concerned about China’s growing economic challenge to the United States. Indeed, the challenge itself is hardly news anymore. But a new book, Red Alert by Stephen Leeb, argues that Americans have radically misunderstood just what this challenge consists of.

Everyone who has “woken up” to the problem (i.e. not the administration, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or the Republican leadership) understands the threat posed by China’s cheap labor and low standards for everything from child labor to environmental protection. Most people who aren’t hopeless laissez-faire ideologues are twigging to the fact that China’s state-directed capitalism is running rings around America’s private-sector capitalism right now. But what few people realize is that China has an even more radical economic strategy up its sleeve, a strategy that aims not just to equal the United States but to surpass it and quite possibly shut America out of the economic future.

The basis of China’s strategy is the fact that the world is heading rapidly into the era of fundamental resource constraints.

Up until the present time in human history, although various natural resources have been scarce enough to fight over, no important natural resource have ever been scarce enough that humanity simply ran out of it.

This, the author argues, is going to change.

The interesting thing is that the resource in question isn’t the usual suspect: oil–though oil is certainly going to become prohibitively expensive as we hunt down the last few drops in harder-and-harder-to-reach places that require more-expensive drilling and extraction techniques for less return. It isn’t gas or coal, either, though these have similar futures.

(Any reader who believes these resources will last indefinitely can stop reading right here; those who are unsure should consult the persuasive analysis in the book itself.)

The resource, paradoxically, is every environmentalist’s dream: green energy.

Huh? How can the world run out of green energy? Isn’t that the whole point?

Oops. In our rush to green energy, we’ve forgotten something. Those pretty blue photovoltaic cells glinting in the sunlight don’t grow on trees. Neither do those magnificent 300-foot windmills or their smaller cousins.

They have to be made, and they are made out of some very scarce materials. (more…)

David Sirota

By David Sirota
Political journalist, best-selling author and syndicated newspaper columnist

When it comes to “free” trade, Ralph Nader (among others) often makes a profound but taboo observation: “True free trade would take only one page for a trade agreement,” he says before typically asking, “How come there are hundreds of pages and thousands of regulations” in these pacts?

The answer is that so-called free trade agreements (i.e., NAFTA, bilateral NAFTA replicas, the WTO regime, etc.) are free only of protections for human beings — that is, free of provisions that preserve, say, labor rights, human rights and the environment. But those deals’ “hundreds of pages” are chock-full of protectionist provisions for multinational companies — provisions that, for example, allow foreign firms to sue governments for lost profits and empower international panels to unilaterally override a nation’s domestic laws if those laws reduce corporate revenues. (more…)

Mike Hall

By Mike Hall
AFL-CIO Senior Writer

Last week,  the Obama administration outlined the actions it will take to address the United Steelworkers’ (USW) Section 301 trade case over China’s predatory and protectionist practices and policies in the clean energy technology sector.

The USW’s petition says China’s government has used hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies, performance requirements, preferential practices and other illegal trade activities to dominate the renewable energy market. USW President Leo Gerard says the White House action comes as an early note of holiday cheer for

those workers in the alternative and renewable energy sector who work hard, play by the rules and simply want a chance to compete. The administration has shown its commitment to enforcing the rules of trade by making it clear to the Chinese government that they will pursue U.S. interests.

The U.S. trade deficit with China in clean energy products more than doubled in the past two years alone and will cost more than 8,000 U.S. jobs in 2010. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) analyzed trade data through August 2010 and found that the trade deficit with China soared at a time when the overall U.S. trade deficit and the U.S. clean energy deficit with other countries both fell sharply. (more…)

Witnesses from Kentucky, Minnesota, Maryland, Michigan, Maine, Ohio and Wisconsin explained to a cameraman from the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) that they told the U.S. International Trade Commission during its hearing on coated paper imports this week that it must balance trade so that America can return to exporting products, not jobs.

The lawmakers, businessmen and paper workers spoke in favor of placing countervailing duties of coated paper from China and Indonesia because those countries violate international trade rules by subsidizing those exports, which unfairly makes the paper so cheap, American companies cannot compete.

Brady Nelson, president of United Steelworkers (USW) Local 1163 at Sappi Fine Paper in Minnesota, was one of about 20 Steelworkers who attended the hearing. He thanked the lawmakers from across the country who testified.

Traci Snider, who has worked for 29 years at NewPage, USW Local 676 in Maryland, said that without those NewPage jobs, most people in her area would not have employment that could support families.

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D- Maine, said the U.S. paper companies make high quality product,s and the U.S. has the essential natural resources. “If the Chinese government goes in there and subsidizing the paper costs, we have no way we can compete.” It is not okay to be dumping coated paper, she added.  “We need to stand up for this principal and the jobs.”

U.S. Rep. Michael Michaud, a Democrat from Maine and former United Steelworker who worked 29 years at a paper company, said he told the trade commission how the dumping of coated paper affects three mills in Maine, the workers and their communities.

U.S. Rep. Dr. Steve Kagen, a Democrat from Wisconsin whose district includes Paper Valley, testified at the hearing and said afterward, “China has been cheating. Indonesia has been cheating. They have stolen our American jobs overseas, and it is time for that to end.”

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

Red, as in furiously red, defined the day last fall when a consortium of companies announced it wanted $450 million in U.S. stimulus money to build a wind farm in Texas, creating 2,000 jobs in China and 300 in America.

Now, nine months later, things have cooled down and turned around. In a deal with the United Steelworkers (USW), two Chinese companies have agreed to build as much of the wind turbines as possible in America, using American-made steel, and creating perhaps 1,000 American jobs.

The deal is a result of white collar Chinese executives negotiating with blue collar union officers to create green collar jobs in the U.S. The agreement defies stereotypes about unions as constantly combative, excessively expensive and environmentally challenged. The USW has a track record of engaging with enlightened CEOs for mutual benefit.  It has a long green history. And it has worked to return off-shored jobs to the U.S.

The USW, like the Democrats in the House and Senate with their Make It in America program, is devoted to preserving and creating family-supporting, prosperity-generating manufacturing jobs in America. And if they’re green, all the better.

Billionaire investor Wilbur Ross has first-hand experience negotiating with unions, including the USW, to sustain U.S. manufacturing. He describes it positively. Here he is on PBS’ Charlie Rose on Aug. 2:

“I have found the leaders of big industrial unions, the steelworkers, the auto workers, they understand dynamics of industry at least as well as the senior management of the companies.”

Ross talked to Rose about dealing with the USW during the time when he was buying  LTV Steel:

“We worked out a contract that took 32 job classifications down to five, changed work rules to make it more flexible and most important of all, we put in a blue collar bonus system. . .We became the most efficient steel company in America. We were making steel with less than one man hour per ton. The Chinese at the time were using six man hours per ton. We were actually exporting some steel to China.”

Ross accomplished that while paying among the highest wages for manufacturing workers in America.

The USW approached the Chinese companies that planned the $1.5 billion Texas wind farm, A-Power Energy Generation Systems Ltd. and Shenyang Power Group, the same way it did Ross. The meetings occurred with the help of U.S. Renewable Energy Group, a private equity firm that facilitates international financing and investment in renewable energy projects. Jinxiang Lu, chairman and chief executive of Shenyang Power, said talking to the union enabled him to see its “vision for win-win relationships between manufacturers and workers.”

For the USW, this deal means the Chinese firms will initially buy approximately 50,000 tons of steel manufactured in unionized American mills to fabricate towers and rebar for the 615 megawatt wind farm in Texas, will employ Americans at a wind turbine assembly plant to be built in Nevada, and will employ more American workers in green jobs at plants constructing the blades, towers and thousands of other wind turbine parts.

For the Chinese companies, the USW, the largest manufacturing union in America, will use its long list of industry contacts to help construct an American supply chain essential to amass the approximately 8,000 components in a wind turbine. The idea is to collaboratively create a solid manufacturing, assembly, component sourcing, and distribution system so that this team – the Chinese companies, U.S. Renewable Energy Group and the USW — will build many more wind farms after the first in Texas.  

Additional wind farms mean more renewable energy freeing the U.S. from reliance on foreign oil. As U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, says, there’s no point in replacing imported foreign oil with imported wind turbines. For energy and economic independence, green manufacturing capacity and green jobs must be in the U.S.

This deal does that. And there’s nothing unusual about foreign companies employing Americans. Many Americans, including USW members, already work in factories owned by many different foreign national companies, including German, Russian, Japanese, Mexican, and Brazilian, with names like Bridgestone-Firestone, Arcelor-Mittal, Rio Tinto, Grupo Mexico, Svenska Cellulosa AB (SCA) and Severstal.

In at least one other case, action by the USW forced the hand of a Chinese company to move jobs to the U.S. Tianjin Pipe, the world’s largest manufacturer of steel pipe, said it could not export profitably to the United States if tariffs rose above 20 percent. This was after the USW and seven steel manufacturers filed a petition with U.S. trade agencies in April of 2009 accusing China of illegally dumping and subsidizing the type of pipe used in the oil and gas industry. The union won that case this past April, and the U.S. Commerce Department imposed import duties ranging from 30 to 100 percent to give the domestic industry relief from the unfair trade practices. To continue selling in the U.S., Tianjin Pipe had no choice but to build an American pipe mill. Construction is expected to begin in Texas this fall on the $1 billion plant to employ 600 by 2010.

Although the USW is cooperating with A-Power and Shenyang Power, it will not back off its trade cases involving exported Chinese steel, pipe, tires, paper and other manufactured products. The stakes for U.S. jobs are just too high.

Back in 1990, when green was not as trendy, the USW recognized that the environment would be among the most important issues of the era and issued the report, “Our Children’s World.”  Since then, it has steadily promoted green — became a founding member of the BlueGreen Alliance and Apollo Alliance, which promote renewable energy and renewable energy jobs.

Good, green American manufacturing jobs. Establishing American energy independence. It is win-win. And it’s getting a green light now.

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

They came first for the Communists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
And I didn’t speak up because I was Protestant.
Then they came for me,
And by that time no one was left to speak up.
–Martin Niemoeller

China is attacking the U.S. with a stealth weapon of mass economic destruction – unfair trade. U.S. corporations – and China – that profiteer from it prefer to label this “free trade.”

But industrial carnage is the only way to describe the devastation done to the U.S. economy by an accumulated trillion dollar trade deficit with China, the destruction of U.S. jobs by off-shoring them to China, and the disintegration of the U.S. industrial sector that is foreclosing America’s ability to support itself or to manufacture weapons to defend itself.

The United Steelworkers union is challenging China and the profiteers. It has demanded imposition of duties and tariffs on imported Chinese products – not because the U.S. can’t compete but because China cheats.

We’ve watched our members lose their jobs as steel mills idled, paper plants closed, and tire factories shuttered. In this war, China came for our jobs. Virtually no one spoke up for displaced blue collar workers. Perhaps you don’t wear a blue collar. A white one will prove no special shield. The Chinese will come for your job too.

In this struggle, it is crucial to understand that so-called free trade isn’t some lofty capitalist ideal. The U.S. engages in “free trade” with the Chinese because they hold $1 trillion in debt over our heads, an obligation they know we can’t pay. We shrink in fear of them. They’re world class bullies. They can do whatever they please. And they do. They violate international trade laws by which we abide. That’s why their stuff is so cheap. The one factor on which the price difference always is blamed – labor costs – is only the tiniest fraction of it.

Labor violations are part of the cheating. The National Labor Committee and others, including reporters from the New York Times, have documented exploitation of Chinese workers that can only be described as modern slavery. We stand in solidarity with these workers and condemn these atrocities that include very young teenagers kept in locked buildings with caged windows where they are forced to labor 14-hour shifts under grueling conditions, but find it impossible to make money or to amass the “exit fee” required to leave. They include children, women, and occasionally men kidnapped and forced to work in brick kilns, coal mines, and sweatshops in the Chinese hinterlands, with no payment other than gruel and a sleeping mat. When Chinese companies treat humans this way, they realize a competitive advantage over American firms that routinely obey humanitarian laws.

China is also one of the most dangerous places in the world to work and live because corporations fail to provide safety equipment for workers, such as dust control devices, and refuse to protect the environment with pollution control equipment. Both practices are profitable for Chinese corporations, particularly when competing with U.S. firms, which must abide by environmental and worker health and safety regulations.

Much more significant, however, are other deliberate Chinese interventions in the market, such as the undervaluation of its currency, subsidization of its manufacturing, counterfeiting, forced transfer of American technology, and refusal to give American companies access to Chinese markets with licensing restrictions, complex regulations and local content rules.

China gives breaks to manufacturers on land, rent, energy and water. Manufacturers may receive bank “loans” they know they’re not required to repay.  China also exempts certain industries from income taxes and gives tax rebates on exports.

China’s deliberate currency undervaluation works as a subsidy as well. The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission explains it this way: “China’s undervalued currency encourages undervalued Chinese exports to the U.S. and discourages U.S. exports because U.S. exports are artificially overvalued. As a result, undervalued Chinese exports have been highly disruptive to the U.S.”

China cheats. Free trade is a myth. The American worker doesn’t need special treatment. We’re the most productive in the world. We just seek fair competition. We want fair trade. The USW wants trade rules enforced.

So the union demands it. Repeatedly, we’ve won cases seeking imposition of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties on unfairly traded imports from China to protect our members. There was the glossy paper case in 2007 and the lightweight thermal paper case in 2008. The USW and four U.S. stainless pipe producers won a final order from the U.S. International Trade Commission in February on dumped Chinese welded austenitic stainless steel pressure pipe. Just two months later, the USW joined seven U.S. companies in seeking duties on  imported Chinese welded and stainless steel pipes used in oil and gas extraction because of massive Chinese government subsidies.

But it’s the tire case that’s causing the commotion. That’s because the USW filed it under “Section 421,” which is supposed to allow the U.S. to combat unfair and damaging surges of particular Chinese imports. China agreed to abide by Section 421 until 2013 in exchange for support from the U.S. when it sought to join the World Trade Organization in 2001.The advantage of Section 421 is that the process is quicker that a typical trade case.

U.S. companies won four Section 421 cases previously, including the McWane Inc. ductile iron waterworks fittings case in 2003, in which the USW testified. The International Trade Commission recommended in the McWane case and the three others that former President George W. Bush penalize Chinese imports. He did nothing – refusing to protect U.S. industry.

But it’s a new day, with a new president. Thus the ruckus. If President Barack Obama adopts the recommendations of the International Trade Commission to use Section 421 to shield American tire manufacturers from unfair trade and preserve American jobs, more cases will quickly follow. That is what China and the corporate profiteers fear.

The USW filed the Section 421 tire case to defend the 15,000 rubber workers who we represented across North America. And we stood alone. No one spoke up for the tire workers. These U.S. workers watched during the past five years as Chinese tire imports increased 215 percent, making China the single largest source of consumer tire imports in the U.S.  In that time, 5,000 U.S. rubber workers lost their jobs. Another 3,000 know they’ll get the boot by year’s end.

America’s increased trade deficits with China since it entered the World Trade Organization have cost 2.3 million workers their jobs or job displacements, according to The China Trade Toll by Robert E. Scott of the Economic Policy Institute.

Most were manufacturing jobs, but, among them, Scott reports, were 127,710 professional, scientific and technical services workers. There were 66,986 managers of companies and enterprises. They even included 13,141 arts, entertainment and recreation workers.

Those, by any definition, are white collar jobs.

Who will speak up for you?

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.”