Blog

James Parks

By James Parks
AFL-CIO Senior Writer

China’s government has failed to live up to the claims its backers made in 2001 to help it gain entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), according to a congressional commission.

In its 2010 annual report, released last week, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) details the multiple ways the Chinese government has flooded the United States with exports while shutting its doors to imports and costing millions of U.S. jobs.

In an understatement, Carolyn Bartholomew, the commission’s vice-chairman, told a Washington, D.C. press conference yesterday:

The grounds on which it [China’s entry into the WTO] was sold did not turn out as promised for American workers.

Supporters claimed in 2001 that admitting China into the WTO would boost U.S. exports, increase American jobs and help transform China’s authoritarian government and enhance U.S. national security. None of that has happened, the USCC report says. (more…)

Dave Johnson

By Dave Johnson
Fellow with Campaign for America’s Future

Today the US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk filed two complaints with the World Trade Organization (WTO). The first alleges that China is keeping American credit and debit card companies out of their electronic payment market. The second is a “dumping” (selling under cost) complaint on steel products.

“We are concerned that China is breaking its trade commitments to the United States and other WTO partners,” Kirk said in announcing the two cases.

This is a big deal, because it tells China that we are willing to fight back. But Sen. Charles Grassley said this was not enough,

“The administration should go one step further and bring a case against China’s unfair currency manipulation at the WTO. Everyone knows China is manipulating its currency to gain an unfair advantage in international trade,” Grassley said.

Almost exactly a year ago I wrote a post, President Obama Enforces Trade Law In China Tire Case!, celebrating President Obama’s decision to enforce the ITC’s recommendation to impose tariffs on Chinese tire imports.

What was the result of that decision to actually enforce trade laws? Did the world end? Did it start a “trade war” with China? No, the result was that jobs started to return.

The Alliance for American Manufacturing is running this full page ad in a few newspapers today:

AAM explains: (click through for links) (more…)

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
USW International President

Long-suffering victim is hardly the American image.  Paul Revere, Mother Jones, John Glenn, Martin Luther King Jr. — those are American icons. Bold, wry, justice-seeking.

So how is it that America finds herself in the position of schoolyard patsy, woe-is-me casualty of China’s illegal trade practices that are destroying U.S. renewable energy manufacturing and foreclosing an energy-independent future?

Come on, America. Show some of that confident pioneer spirit. Stand up for yourself. Tell China that America isn’t going to hand over its lunch money anymore; international trade law will be enforced now.

That’s the demand the United Steelworkers (USW) union made this week when it filed a 5,800-page suit detailing how China violates a wide variety of World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations.

80 boxes containing USW trade case being delivered to U.S. Trade Representative

The case, now in the hands of the U.S. Trade Representative, shows how China uses illegal land grants, prohibited low-interest loans and other outlawed measures to pump up its renewable energy industries and facilitate export of those products at artificially low prices to places like the United States and Europe.

The U.S. aids renewable energy industries, like solar cell and wind turbine manufacturers, but no where near the extent that China does. And the American aid lawfully goes to renewable manufacturers that produce for domestic consumption. China, by contrast, illegally subsidizes industries that export, a strategy that kills off competition.

The USW recognizes and appreciates that trade with China has lifted millions there out of poverty. But truly fair trade would benefit workers in both China and the United States. And that is what the USW is demanding.

The USW is far from alone in accusing China of violations. New York Times reporter Keith Bradsher described them in a story Sept. 8, titled “On Clean Energy, China Skirts Rules.” It ends with this quote from Zhao Feng, general manger of Hunan Sunzone Optoelectronics, a two-year-old solar panel manufacturer that exports nearly 95 percent of its products to Europe and is opening offices in three U.S. cities to push into the American market:

“Who wins this clean energy race really depends on how much support the government gives.”

The U.S. isn’t providing support that violates WTO regulations. China is. And it’s  hundreds of billions — $216 billion from China’s stimulus package, another $184 billion to be spent through 2020, $172 million in research and development over the past four years.

Bradsher’s story details illegal aid given Sunzone and says that it’s common, not exceptional. It includes China turning over land to Sunzone for a third of the market price and government-controlled banks granting Sunzone low-interest loans that the provincial government helps Sunzone repay.

In addition, the USW suit notes that China, which accounts for 93 percent of the world’s production of so-called rare earth materials like dysprosium and terbium essential for green energy technology, has severely restricted their export. That practice, illegal under WTO rules, forces some foreign companies to move manufacturing to China to get access.

And when corporations move, China routinely – and illegally — mandates they transfer technology to Chinese partners, which often means U.S.-tax-dollar-supported research and development benefits China.

That is one reason China rose to first in the world in clean energy so quickly.  China now leads globally in producing solar panels. It doubled its wind power capacity in one year – 2009. Worldwide, Chinese manufacturers supply at least half of all hydropower projects and fabricate 75 percent of all compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, BP shut down its solar panel manufacturing plant in Maryland this year and Evergreen Solar of Marlboro, Mass., plans to close its American plant, eliminating 300 U.S. jobs. Both are moving manufacturing to China.

Germany’s Solar World still manufactures in Europe and the United States, and its chief executive, Frank A. Asbeck, told Bradsher the German solar industry association is investigating whether to file a suit of its own to try to stop China’s illegal practices:

“China is cordoning off its own solar market to fend off international competition while arming its industry with a bottomless pile of subsidies and boundless lines of credit.”

The Times story also says China’s “aggressive government policies” are designed to ensure “Chinese energy security.”

China’s illegal aggression to secure its energy independence and dominate world production of green technology threatens the energy security of the United States.

America turned to renewables not just to diminish climate change but also to reduce dependence on foreign oil, an addiction that has entangled the U.S. in costly and bloody wars.

If the United States can’t build its own renewable energy products, it will forfeit the next generation high technology industry and good manufacturing jobs, and it will remain dangerously beholden to foreign nations for energy.

China agreed to follow international regulations when it joined the World Trade Organization. This pledge was crucial because China’s economy is government-controlled, very different from the free market economies of the United States and most Western nations.

Faced with blatant rule-flouting that has cost USW members their jobs and threatens to cost their children high-technology manufacturing of the future, the USW is demanding the American government put a stop to it.

That is how a true American acts. Americans have a sense of justice. They follow the rules and expect trading partners to do the same. When they don’t, Americans do something about it.

The fall elections are less than three months away, and the economy is signaling that America  is in deep trouble in earning its way in the world and providing jobs for our people. We’re piling up huge foreign debts but don’t have any plans for repaying them or putting people back to work.

I’ve been trying to present a proposal based on an idea from Warren Buffett in 2003. It became a Senate  bill, “The Balanced Trade Restoration Act of 2006.”  It could be updated and submitted to Congress in a few weeks.

It would create a system to assure that imports to our rich market will not exceed our exports. This balanced trade would strengthen U.S. industry, bring much  business back to American companies and provide millions of jobs for our workers. No deficit spending would be needed. It would also eliminate our ruinous trade deficits and related foreign borrowing. And it would be fully in accord with all GATT/WTO rules.

I am seeking reconsideration of this proposal by the Administration’s top trade executive. The goal is to get as fast a decision so that the plan can be presented to the public  before election day and ready for Congress soon after.

Kenneth N. Davis Jr.
President, Economic Strategy Associates, Inc.
Stamford, Conn.

***

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. 

Stan Sorscher

By Stan Sorscher
Labor Representative, Society for Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA)

Support for free trade is declining for good reason. Free trade came with a promise of prosperity. However, after 20 years of experience, we have structural trade deficits and an economy that cannot create jobs.

What went wrong with free trade?

First of all, free trade is orthodoxy, not science. Free trade orthodoxy stands on the Theory of Comparative Advantage, a great philosophical accomplishment of the 18th and 19th centuries. Unfortunately, Comparative Advantage is highly idealized and fundamentally flawed. It ignores the real-world conditions of 21st century globalization. (more…)

Stan Sorscher

By Stan Sorscher
Labor Representative, Society for Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA)

One popular position on trade is to “level the playing field.”

I’m not always sure what that means, but I’m in favor of it.

Any intention to level the playing field starts with a simple realization — that rules of trade can favor one outcome over another. For instance, our current free trade policies tip the playing field steeply in favor of more imports, and movement of production to low-wage countries. This is good for multinational businesses and investors, but bad for workers and communities. Trade agreements spell out investor rights in fine detail, while pushing aside environmental conditions, labor rights, human rights and public health.

 
Fig. 1 Our trade policies are tipped in favor of imports and against domestic industry.

One central outcome of globalization is to make capital mobile in new ways with greater ease. Free trade rules encourage GE to invest billions in China, Microsoft to invest billions in India and Boeing to invest billions in Russia. Our current policy makes low-wage countries attractive, and makes new investment in our domestic economy unattractive. Andy Grove made this point quite clearly in his July 1 commentary in BusinessWeek. (more…)

Gilbert B. Kaplan

 By Gilbert B. Kaplan
Former Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Department of Commerce

If you were going to start a trade war against the United States, it is unlikely that your first salvo would be on chicken parts, or as the Chinese rather charmingly first announced, on dorkings. A dorking is a five toed chicken that flourishes in Surrey, England. The normal chicken has four toes. If you have not heard of dorkings before, you are not the only one.

But this is where the Chinese government focused their retaliation earlier this week, in response to President Obama’s decision to impose duties on Chinese tires. To step back, on September 11, President Obama took one of the best and strongest decisions that has been made on trade issues in this town for a long time, imposing duties ranging up to 35% on surging imports of tires from China. In so doing, he overturned eight years of precedent established by his predecessor who had declined to enforce a trade statute called Section 421. Section 421 is a trade statute China agreed to as a condition to becoming a member of the WTO; and it is designed to deal with low cost imports from China that surged into the U. S. after they joined.

It is a trade remedy that makes good sense. As a benefit to China when they joined the WTO, U.S. duties on goods coming in from China were lowered permanently across the board, generally to a zero rate. But China agreed, in turn, that up until 2013 we could impose short term duties to off-set import surges that might result from this change, when the surges harmed our industries and workers during the break-in phase. Since that time, industry after industry in the U. S. has faced these import surges, but it was not until now that the U. S. acted.

The reaction from the Wall Street Journal, George Will, David Rockefeller writing in the New York Times, and many other supporters of the status quo was to declare the beginning of war and the end of trade as we know it. And to bemoan the beginning of protectionism. And finally, to invoke the memory of the Smoot-Hawley tariff and usher in the beginning of the second great depression.

There will be no trade war. For the Chinese to declare a trade war on the United States in retaliation for the U. S. actions would be roughly like Wal-Mart declaring a trade war on the American consumer or Walt Disney declaring a trade war on America’s children. The United States is the best friend economically China has. It is basically China’s free lunch. We have thrown open our enormous market–still the largest in the world by far–to Chinese imports and run a sustained trade deficit with China of over $100 billion a year since they joined the WTO. Our deficit with China is now over $250 billion per year. We lowered out tariffs to zero and admitted China to the WTO because we believe in free trade, but this was not something the United States had to do. We could have blocked their entry. So the prospect of China wanting to strike back on something beyond dorkings that would really hurt our economy is nil. Though they have threatened action on auto parts as well, this has not yet materialized and even the value of our auto part imports into China is small.

Nor can President Obama’s action be called protectionist. China agreed in its Accession Protocol with the rest of the WTO members and the United States that such short term safeguard measures could be applied against them. Just as their enormous trade access to our market is a result of the WTO agreement, so is the short term adjustment action President Obama took. The duties will only remain in effect for three years. This is exactly the kind of case this remedy was designed for. Passenger tire imports from China did indeed surge during the period of review, 2004-2008, increasing by well over 200%, and causing over 9,000 U. S. job losses through this year, and the closing or idling of many U. S. production plants. And to say that the application of this 421 remedy has been overzealous by the United States borders on the absurd. Only six other cases have even been filed under the statute. Of these, the International Trade Commission, a bi-partisan independent agency, has found injury in four others, but in none of those has the President ever imposed a remedy. This is the first in eight years.

And as to the dire warnings of the onset of the next great depression, the economic evidence all goes in exactly the opposite direction. We have lost millions of manufacturing jobs since 2001 in this country. If we do not take action to brace up the manufacturing sector and allow more reasonable adjustments to globalization, it will be this failure that will prolong and deepen the recession we are already in. Yesterday’s job numbers, showing a continuing increase in the unemployment rate to 9.8%, the highest level since 1983, demonstrate that.

The fundamental point is that many people in this country, including those represented by the commentators mentioned above and those wailing about the horrors of the tire tariffs are making an enormous amount of money by moving jobs to China, building factories there financed by Chinese government largess in the form of subsidies, and avoiding the environmental, health care, and corporate tax costs they would have to pay here. So they stand up against even the most measured trade actions, meant to help the American worker and manufacturer.

No, there will be no trade war. It’s just too hard to imagine the war cry, “Let the Dorking Wars Begin!”

***

 Mr. Kaplan is the Former Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Department of Commerce and he is currently a partner in the international trade firm of King & Spalding in Washington, D. C. He filed the first successful anti-subsidy case by any U. S. industry against China, which led to large anti-subsidy duties on imports of Chinese pipe into the United States in 2008. Mr. Kaplan can be contacted at gkaplan@kslaw.com.

***

This piece was first published on The Huffington Post

Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard
International President

Barack Obama proved Friday he’s got grit. He enforced trade laws.

These are special trade safeguard rules, called “Section 421,”  that the Chinese had agreed to obey to gain entrance to the World Trade Organization (WTO). They are, however, laws that had gone unenforced by the U.S. in the past.

President Obama used these safeguard rules to imposed tariffs on tires manufactured in China and imported into the U.S., following a recommendation by the International Trade Commission, an independent, bi-partisan group. The action made Obama the first president to execute sanctions under “Section 421.”

The International Trade Commission recommended sanctions under “Section 421” four times before Obama took office. Nothing was done. The result was closed American factories, lost American manufacturing jobs, diminished American dreams.

Not this time though. Not this president. Obama showed he’s made of tougher stuff. By placing tariffs on imported Chinese tires, President Obama put himself in the line of fire for the jobs of U.S. workers, for the preservation of U.S. manufacturing and, ultimately, for the stabilization of the U.S. economy.

Don’t kid yourself. This is a battle. For the U.S. to maintain a viable economy, it must sustain a strong manufacturing base. It must make products of value that can be sold here and overseas – not just swap paper, some of it bogus on Wall Street.

The U.S. economy is under attack by countries engaging in unfair trade. In the past decade, we’ve lost 40,000 manufacturing facilities. In just the 21 months since the Great Recession began, more than 2 million manufacturing workers have lost their jobs, making their unemployment rate 11.8 percent, significantly higher than the 9.7 percent rate for the average worker.

That’s what the Chinese tire case was all about. My union, the United Steelworkers (USW) filed it in April. We demanded penalties against China because it has smothered the U.S. market with tires. In 2004, its share of the U.S market was 4.7 percent. Four years later, it was 16.7 percent. In that time, the number of tires it sold rose from 14.6 million to 46 million. As a result, four U.S. tire manufacturing plants closed and 5,100 workers lost their jobs. Another three plants will close before year’s end, throwing 3,000 more U.S. workers on the street.

We filed for relief under “Section 421” for two reasons. One is that it provides quicker relief than other trade remedies. The other is that China consented to its provisions. When China wanted to get into the World Trade Organization in 2000, it secured U.S. support by agreeing to abide by Section 421 until 2013. Section 421 was designed to protect the U.S. economy by providing ways to combat unfair and damaging surges of particular Chinese imports.

In the past, corporations had asked for Section 421 tariffs. And we had joined them. This time, not one tire company joined us, though, to be clear, Goodyear was openly neutral. By contrast, Ohio-based Cooper, fought us. As did a collection of rag-tag import firms, one of which had nearly gone bankrupt after importing defective Chinese tires that had to be recalled after a series of crashes.

 Cooper, in testimony to the International Trade Commission, reported that all of the tires it makes at its Chinese plant, under its licensing agreement with the Chinese, must be exported until May, 2012. So it has a clear financial interest in preventing tariffs on imported tires to the U.S. The tire import companies have the same interest. For them, it’s about the money they make today, no matter how or where it’s made. They’ve got no allegiance to the U.S. and don’t care what happens to America’s future manufacturing capability or financial stability.

President Obama, by contrast, is a patriot who sees the big picture and takes the long view. U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio was right when he said after the tire tariffs were announced:

“Today the President courageously stood up and enforced fair trade rules that will save jobs and help our communities. Since China joined the World Trade Organization, American workers have not been assured that the government would defend them against unfair trade. With this “Section 421” decision, President Obama has taken the side of American workers and manufacturers.

“Rigorous trade enforcement is a major piece of our manufacturing and global competitiveness strategy. If American workers and manufacturers are going to compete in the global market, they need to have a government that uses trade enforcement tools, including the Section 421 safeguard.”

American workers and American manufacturers can compete – when trade is fair. It’s unfair when countries don’t enforce their own labor regulations, including their own minimum wage laws. It’s unfair when U.S. companies abide by strict environmental regulations and those in other countries openly pollute air and water. It’s unfair when other countries allow their firms to steal trade secrets, when other countries demand that firms export all of their products for a certain number of years and when other countries manipulate the value of their currencies.

If trade laws aren’t enforced, America will lose virtually all manufacturing and become nothing but a dumping ground – a place where the rest of the world sells the stuff it makes. Fewer and fewer citizens in that America would be able to buy stuff after the factories close and all the jobs that they support disappear.

In announcing the tire trade sanctions — tariffs of 35 percent for a year beginning Sept. 26, 30 percent for a year after that, and 25 percent in the final year — U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said, “Enforcing trade laws is key to maintaining an open and free trading system.”

Unfair trade isn’t free.

President Obama is bold enough to draw that line of distinction for America.

Dave Johnson

By Dave Johnson
Fellow with Campaign for America’s Future

When China was accepted into the World Trade Organization, they agreed that if we experienced import surges of Chinese goods that caused “market disruption,” we would be allowed to limit the import of those goods. The particular section of the agreement is called “Section 421.”

When the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) determines that the level of imports from China cause or threaten to cause market disruption to American producers of competitive products, it proposes a remedy that can include quotas or other relief. The President of the United States then makes a decision whether to enforce that recommendation.

President Bush repeatedly (seven times) refused to enforce Section 421 even when our own ITC found that American companies, factories and jobs were being lost. Bush claimed at the time that the destructive effects of dramatic, sudden increases in Chinese imports that Section 421 was meant to mitigate were actually good for the U.S. economy. Bush’s policy was the opposite of “protectionism” — it actually favored China‘s companies over our own! (I think we’ve seen how that has worked out.)

Very soon we will have an opportunity to see where President Obama comes down on this issue. The ITC has decided by a 4-2 vote that the U.S. tire industry has been harmed by a large increase in imports. They have recommended increasing tariffs starting at 55%, falling to 35% over three years. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative now has to give its recommendation on this to the White House by Sept. 2.

President Obama has until Sept. 17 to make a decision. This is just one week before the upcoming G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. There is considerable pressure on him to to signal that the US will restore trade balance and help manufacturing in America, by following the rules of the WTO that China agreed to.

According to the United Steel Workers, which represents workers in the tire industry, thousands of jobs are being lost and tire plans in the US are shutting down. Also at this page is a chart from the ITC showing that the benefits of enforcing remedies “are two-and-a-half times greater than the costs” to consumers.

Mike Elk wrote the other day at the Campaign for America’s Future blog,

President Obama stands at a crossroads in the fight to rebuild the American economy.

President Obama has made a commitment in the past to uphold previously signed trade agreements. China, however, is violating these agreements by flooding the market with a massive 300 percent increase in tire imports in an attempt to wipe out American tire manufacturers. In 2004, China sent 14 million tires to the U.S. valued at $453 million. By last year, that had increased to 46 million tires valued at $1.7 billion.

Mike also points out,

Chinese importers, in conjunction with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, have ironically formed a lobbying front group ironically named American Coalition for Free Trade in Tires. The coalition is run by Jochum, Shore & Trossevin, a Washington D.C. lobby firm run by former Bush trade officials who are cashing in on their years of U.S. government service to advise foreign competitors.

Jim Wansley, former USW Goodyear local president, testified about the impact of the closing of the Goodyear plant in Tyler, Texas where he had worked for 39 1/2 years:

The closure put hundreds of workers, many of whom had given decades of service to the plant, out of work. The closure was devastating to the workers and their families, but it is also being felt throughout the community of Tyler, Texas. Tyler has a population of about 100,000. Like many small and medium-sized towns that depend on manufacturing for middle class jobs, the loss of these jobs has taken its toll. The Goodyear plant directly benefitted the local economy by supporting local small businesses who served as its suppliers and service providers.

The plant also provided enormous indirect benefits. Jobs at the plant paid good wages and benefits, enabling workers to lead decent middle class lives, buy homes, send their kids to college, and save for retirement. These are the kind of jobs that support an entire community as families pay their doctor bills, buy new cars, and contribute to local charities. The plant and its workers were also an important source of tax revenue for the city, the county, and the state.

. . . The victims will not only be the workers and their families, but the suppliers, service providers, local businesses, and entire communities that depend on the industry. In sum, there is an enormous cost to doing nothing. If more plants like Tyler close, we can expect to suffer total additional losses of almost a billion dollars per plant, per year.

On the other hand, The Washington Post points out,

If Obama backs the tariff, he risks upsetting the Chinese at a time when the United States needs China to keep buying U.S. government debt to fund stimulus efforts.

This is not just an intellectual discussion. This, like all trade issues, is about American workers losing their livelihoods and communities losing their economic base. At the same time the policies of the Bush administration — borrowing trillions of dollars from them while allowing our manufacturing base to deteriorate — have placed China in a very strong position of economic advantage which gives them the power to demand concessions.

For more information:

USW fact sheets, background, other info related to tire trade case against China

Statements by Senators, other lawmakers supportive of USW unfair trade case claim against Chinese tires

More Members of Congress, Senate praise ITC ruling in tire trade case

A post at TradeReform.org: Trade Community Awaits President’s Decision on China Tire Safeguard

Testimony of Senator Sherrod Brown before the U.S. ITC on the tire issue.

Gilbert B. Kaplan, Former Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Department of Commerce, writing at Huffington Post on this and other trade issues with China.

ManufactureThis.org: Making the Case for Relief from Chinese Tire Imports

One group in opposition to this ruling is American tire distributors, who benefit from the low prices of Chinese imports. (Note this is published by the Chinese Xinhua News Agency.)

***

This post originally appeared at the Campaign for America’s Future (CAF) Blog for OurFuture as part of the Making It In America project.

Johnson also is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream.

Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson

Robert Kutner

By Robert Kutner
Co-Founder and Co-Editor of The American Prospect

Barack Obama may soon find that he is committing a big sin against one of the major premises of the reigning ideology. As part of his plan to restructure the auto industry, rebuild infrastructure, and create new green industries and jobs, he will be committing industrial policy. And this will create a head-on collision with one of the cherished dogmas of market fundamentalism — “free trade.”

This clash is long overdue. For several decades, American elites of both parties have been preaching the same gospel of free trade. Supposedly, if we just leave markets alone, different countries will produce and export what they naturally do best, and import products at which their partners excel. In the tidy and oversimplified textbook world, there is no room for questions about pollution, labor standards, product safety, financial engineering, or industrial policy.

But the real world doesn’t work like the Econ. 101 fable. In much of the rest of the world, governments help their industries develop.

However, in the hierarchy of America’s diplomatic priorities, countries like China that subsidize industries (and violate human rights) get a free pass. Other nations like Japan, that basically closed their borders to most imports for several decades while they became industrial powerhouses, got a seal of approval, too. Supposedly, what we lose in jobs and industries, we make up in cheap imports.

While other nations care about what they produce, the United States disdains having industrial policies, in order to set a good example. Indeed, we have been the principal architect of the World Trade Organization, which discourages government involvement in economic development as an illicit thumb on the free-trade scale.

Now, with the crash of 2008, it is clear that the US economy was built on a financial mirage. Our reliance on asset bubbles – inflated stock and real estate prices – disguised the fact that we were not paying our way. Much of our prosperity was simply borrowed.

Having let so many industries and jobs just go offshore, we don’t make enough to pay for our imports. Instead, we have been relying on loans from foreign central banks to finance our trade imbalance.

Looking at this economic calamity, President-elect Obama has proposed several sensible policies. He wants the U.S. auto industry to reinvent itself, with government aid and government standards. He wants to incubate other domestic industries around the goal of clean energy. And he wants to spend serious money on all of this, to help avoid a depression. The only historical counterpart is the vast industrial mobilization of World War II, which finally cured the Great Depression.

But these ideas about government involvement in the economy violate the sacred dogma of free trade. If the Obama administration is serious about reviving American manufacturing industry, it is only a matter of time before a foreign government hauls the U.S. before the World Trade Organization and charges us with the crime of industrial policy.

To quote our beloved leader George W. Bush in a different context, bring it on. The current version of the W.T.O., designed by and for US multinational corporations to make it easier to outsource jobs and production, has not served the national interest. It is indeed time to use industrial policy to rebuild long neglected domestic industries; and if something has to give, let it be the W.T.O.

As a mark of the total intellectual muddle in how policymakers have thought about these issues, the fact is that we have several implicit industrial policies. For instance, American commercial leadership in aerospace is no naturally occurring phenomenon. It reflects trillions of dollars of subsidy from the Pentagon and from NASA. Likewise, U.S. dominance in pharmaceuticals is the result of government subsidy of basic research, favorable patent treatment, and the fact that the American consumer of prescription drugs is made to overpay, giving the industry exorbitant profits to plow back into research. Throwing $700 billion at America’s wounded banks is also an industrial policy

So if we can have implicit industrial policies for these industries, why not explicit policies to rebuild our auto industry, our steel industry, our machine tool industry, and the industries of the next century such as green energy and high-speed rail? And why not devise some clear standards for which industries deserve help, and why, and what they owe America in return?

The new administration is already a bit schizophrenic on the subject. On the one hand, President-elect Obama has been saying bold things about building the industries of the future. On the other hand, he just appointed as America’s top trade official Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, a man with no serious diplomatic experience and one whose main claim to fame on the trade issue is that he has been a big booster of NAFTA, a badly flawed deal that Obama has pledged to reopen.

Kirk’s appointment was meant to signal that Obama will not challenge the current orthodoxy on trade policy. It was cheered by the U.S. business establishment. What is truly bizarre is that Obama’s reported first choice for the job was California Congressman Xavier Becerra, a critic of NAFTA and other recent trade deals. Kirk will also vehemently disagree on trade and industry with Obama’s new labor secretary-designate, Rep. Hilda Solis, another NAFTA critic.

Maybe, like Lincoln, Obama has the genius to fuse this “team of rivals” into an effective administration; perhaps he will listen to the divergent advice and forge the best course. When the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin coined that phrase to describe Lincoln’s manner of governing, she was referring to the fact that Lincoln literally brought into his cabinet men who had been Lincoln’s rivals for the Republican presidential nomination in 1860. These were people of real stature and of fierce differences, representing a party that was badly fractured on the key issues of how to save the union and whether to free the slaves.

Obama has prided himself building bridges and transcending ideology. We are now beginning to see what that means in practice–a cabinet that represents people of thoroughly contradictory views, with some members who are public figures of real consequence and others who are surprisingly weak. This pattern puts all the more pressure on Obama himself to create coherence out of the stew.

Despite these gestures of broad inclusion, there is no escaping the fact that Obama must quickly make some difficult decisions about which path to follow. And one path precludes another. He can’t have both his industrial policies and his free trade.

Robert Kuttner’s new bestselling book is “Obama’s Challenge: America’s Economic Policy and the Power of a Transformative Presidency.”

Robert Kuttner’s new bestselling book is “Obama’s Challenge: America’s Economic Policy and the Power of a Transformative Presidency.”

Column first published on The Huffington Post