The Truth About Obama's Trade Disputes with China.

PBS's Market to Market may seem a bit on the dry side, but rarely is. Take a look at this report comparing Pres. Obama's trade disputes with China and the claims he took no action, made by the Romney campaign. Just the facts:

Ryan promises to crack down on China, you know, like Pres. Obama is.

In case you missed it, Obama hasn't been shy about penalizing China for dumping products in the U.S. But oddly, Paul Ryan hasn't noticed, or he's lying again about another phony issue.

CBS: Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan on Thursday accused President Obama of allowing China to treat him like a "doormat" and failing to stop its economic cheating.

"Free trade is a powerful tool for peace and prosperity, but our trading partners need to play by the rules. And this challenge focuses on China," Ryan said

Obama "said he'd go to the mat with China," Ryan added. "Instead, they're treating him like a doormat. We're not going to let that happen. Mitt Romney and I are going to crack down on China cheating. And we're going to make sure that trade works for Americans."

Ryan voted against a House-passed bill in September 2010 authorizing the Commerce Department to impose duties on imports from countries with undervalued currencies such as China.

In what looks like a talking point right out of Scott Walker's playbook, Romney and Ryan are promising...jobs, and lots of them. 

Ryan also talked up Romney's economic plan that promises to create 12 million jobs in the next four years.

In a statement that sounds more like the ranting’s of a third world dictator, Ryan's authoritarian streak is starting to dominate his subject matter. If you want to hand over "moral authority" to Ryan, in the form of an irreversible "covenant" and "mandate," than :

"We want to honor you by giving you the choice. So that we can earn victory, so that we will deserve victory, so that we will have the moral authority, the obligation, the contract, the covenant, and the mandate to do what needs to be done to get this country back on track," he said. His remarks made clear that Romney and Ryan are seeking not just a victory, but a mandate from the American people.

Paul Ryan Dismisses Consumer Demand as Job Creator: "I'd like to see us focus more on the corporate tax reform stuff."

Even worse than the title comment, when asked about the trade bills Ryan himself oversees, jobs took a back seat. Surprised?

Host: "when you asked the question (to the White House why the trade policy hasn't moved forward)...what answer did you get back?"

Ryan: "Labor, uh, pressure from their base on the "left."

The word Ryan is searching for is "Democratic Party." Not "left," not the "base," but the Democratic Party. The only other major political group that is now being marginalized and accused of stealing our country. They're horrified that they would have protecting jobs. Instead, they would like displaced workers to go through the nightmarish alternative of job retraining, which they think makes up for the job losses.

But according to the actual business community, in the real world and away from corporate lobbyists, Ryan is wrong. It's all about DEMAND! NY Times:

The dismal state of the economy is the main reason many companies are reluctant to hire workers, and few executives are saying that President Obama’s jobs plan — while welcome — will change their minds any time soon … many employers … said they tended to hire more workers or expand when the economy improved.

Companies are focused on jittery consumer confidence … and above all, swings in demand for their products. “You still need to have the business need to hire,” said Jeffery Braverman, owner of Nutsonline. “Business demand is what drives hiring,” he said. The proposed payroll tax cuts for individuals should spur consumer spending and in turn, prompt companies to hire more people.

Chesapeake Energy, one of the biggest explorers of oil and gas in shale fields said it had 800 positions open, and had already received tax credits for hiring the long-term unemployed … Michael Kehs, vice president for strategic affairs and public relations, said the credit “does not drive our hiring.” Most of those jobs would be added, economists say, as workers spend the additional take-home pay that would result from a proposed payroll tax cut for employees. As consumers increase spending, that can prompt more hiring by retailers, washing machine makers, restaurants and more. 

Republicans Continue to Support US Job Losses in Trade Deals, Discounting Efforts to Retrain Displaced Workers.

Jobs, jobs, jobs???

Isn’t it about time we admit Republicans used the uncertainty over American jobs as an empty campaign slogan? If it wasn’t, would the Republicans have even thought to put a stop to funding retraining programs for displaced workers?  

WoPo: Congressional Republicans are holding back approval of a White House-backed extension of worker benefits in order to pressure the Obama administration to finalize pending free-trade agreements with Colombia and Panama. The move to link the two issues puts at risk a federal initiative that helps retrain and find work for several hundred thousand U.S. workers who have been displaced by global trade.

What happened to the deliberate process of debate and not ramming even trade deals down America’s throat?

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk's … made clear that the administration will not move on the Panama and Colombia agreements without first revising them, "we will not sign agreements just for agreements' sake," Kirk said … progress has been … getting Panama to take steps to prevent individuals and companies from using the country as a tax  … The issues under discussion with Colombia … involve the independence of the country's judiciary and violence against union organizers.

Violence against union organizers? It's a conservative wet dream. How could you not blame Republicans for pushing the approval process  along quickly, knowing unions would face state sanctioned brutality against organizers. 

Perhaps Republicans are looking to see what works in Columbia, before they start their own more aggressive campaign against unions here, once one party rule is restored in 2012.

Factoid: Over the past 20 years, 2,754 unionists have been murdered in Columbia. More often than not, no convictions are ever obtained. In the rare instance where prosecutors are able to obtain a conviction, which is roughly 5 percent of the time, it is often in absentia, meaning the government does not have a suspect in custody.  According to Torrico, a 2008 report by Human Rights Watch a high level of collusion between Columbian lawmakers and the paramilitaries carrying out the murders, suggesting that the low conviction rate is no mere coincidence or simply bad police work.

Advice from Ron Johnson: You better hope you're not on the losing side of "Creative Destruction."

Job losses in Wisconsin due to free trade and the global economy produce what Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson calls "Creative Destruction," a Schumpetarian business model. How will this help Wisconsin is anybody's guess. Wispolitics:



Maybe Ron Johnson can explain "creative destruction" to the former employees of the disappearing paper manufacturing industry here, where "creative" had nothing to do with the availability of slave wages and loose environmental controls. It's also heavily subsidized by the Chinese government. How is that "free" and "fair" trade?

It must be comforting for workers in Wisconsin to know that their next senator off handily believes "There are winners and losers," and that at any moment, they might be losers. That's capitalism. Deal with it.

Schumpeterian? What the hell is that, and who is Joseph Schumpeter? I gathered the following information. Interesting note: From what I understand, Schumpeter borrow the term "creative destruction" from Karl Marx.

Capitalism, then, is by nature a form or method of economic change and not only never is but never can be stationary. Nor is this evolutionary character due to a quasi-automatic increase in population and capital … The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers, goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, the new forms of industrial organization that capitalist enterprise creates.

He popularized the term "creative destruction" in economics. Schumpeter's most popular book in English is probably Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. This book opens with a treatment of Karl Marx. While he is sympathetic to Marx's theory that capitalism will collapse and will be replaced by socialism, Schumpeter concludes that this will not come about in the way Marx predicted. To describe it he borrowed the phrase "

Schumpeter's theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism, especially among intellectuals. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form.

He disputed the idea that democracy was a process by which the electorate identified the common good, and politicians carried this out for them. He argued this was unrealistic, and that people's ignorance and superficiality meant that in fact they were largely manipulated by politicians, who set the agenda. This made a 'rule by the people' concept both unlikely and undesirable. Instead he advocated a minimalist model, much influenced by Max Weber, whereby democracy is the mechanism for competition between leaders, much like a market structure.

Although periodic votes by the general public legitimize governments and keep them accountable, the policy program is very much seen as their own and not that of the people, and the participatory role for individuals is usually severely limited. Today, Schumpeter has a following outside

Low Wages part 29; The next best thing since sliced bread…for business.

While the government continues to provide tax breaks for companies outsourcing jobs and manufacturing, U.S. workers are being forced to compete with lower wages and benefits globally, in turn lowering the standard of living and redefining what it is to be middle class. Even high end products, catering to wealthy consumers, is now getting the Wal-Mart treatment.

Wisconsin State Journal: Leaders of the union representing employees at Wolf Appliance say the company is asking their members to take a deep pay cut or their jobs could be moved out of state. Union business manager Tim Hintze said "they needed a 20 percent reduction in wages and benefits or the jobs would be moved to Kentucky ... They said that due to economic conditions, they needed to lower the cost of the product and to do that, they needed to lower the wages."

This is where we are today, and the global free market place may be here to stay, unless drastic protectionist action is taken. I know, it's a generally vilified solution that defends the economic well being of a sovereign country. Someone tell me why protecting and stabilizing the products and wages of a nation is a bad thing.

Bring on the Low Wages, Say Corporate Free Marketeers. Have we learned Nothing from Dickens?

America is one of the largest consumer markets in the world. Sell it here and foreign manufacturers can make a lot of money. Despite this huge attractive market, we're not using our consumer buying strength as a bargaining tool. It's simply a freebie for global markets to exploit and plunder.

Now instead of protecting our country workers and maintaining the ability of our citizens to be strong consumers, corporations are now push hard for lower wages. The excuse; we're not facing the "reality" that wages are really low all over the world. A reality they would like to create here. We're returning to a Dickensian labor market of the haves and the have nots, poor houses and Marleys ghost.

The following sick look at is so filled with bizarre leaps logic, I will hold my commentary back this time only because it's so obviously wrong in so many places. But it is what you'll start hearing more now than ever before, now that we have a free market Democrat in the White House.

From CNN:
Competition. A simple concept and a beneficial one. It makes us better by forcing us to work harder.

When we're not hiding from domestic competition, we're trying to shield ourselves from the foreign variety. High-skilled workers don't want to compete with those from China, India or Pakistan. Low-skilled workers are just as afraid of those from Mexico, Guatemala or El Salvador.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to give displaced workers in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania a convenient villain to blame -- the North American Free Trade Agreement. Build a wall. Impose a tariff. All so we don't have to put up with the annoyance of being forced to out-work, out-produce and out-hustle someone else to make a living. Imagine that. What people in other countries accept as the natural order, we continue to resist.

Consider what Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, is pitching. He has just written a new 10-point immigration reform bill that he plans to introduce any day now. "No American worker, no citizen of the United States, no one born here in this country should ever have to lose an opportunity for gainful employment at the expense of someone not born here."

As principles go, that one is dreadful. If a job is available, U.S. workers should be free to compete for it, but not have it handed to them on a silver platter. Likewise, foreign workers who come here legally should have a shot at competing for that same job.

Of course, protectionists claim that the playing field isn't level since foreign workers will often accept less money to do the same job, thus putting American workers at a disadvantage.

Tough.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com.

WMC: Promote Corporate Royalty, Citizen Subservience and a Buyer Beware Market

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, a business lobbying group, took a little time out of their busy schedule and offered to help the governor and legislature make the state more attractive to the few remaining corporations able to survive the current economic depression. Having succeeded in shipping manufacturing jobs overseas for cheap slave labor, which in turn destroyed Wisconsin's manufacturing base, their next step involves whining about the loss of jobs and advocating a similar employee climate like India and China to attract big business.

So what would the business lobby in Wisconsin want changed, with my response first in parenthesis:

Harmonize Regulation (Get rid of tighter state regulations for a one-size-fits all Federal standards. This flies in the face of the conservative’s hard rhetoric involving “states rights"): We should attempt to harmonize regulatory statutes and administrative rules with those imposed under federal law.

Promoting Quality Health Care (Not affordable universal coverage like competing global nations, but expanding the failed dysfunctional private for profit care. More corporate rationing): We should focus our efforts on improving the current private sector health care delivery system ... improving quality and reducing unnecessary or inappropriate treatment.

Enhance Fairness in our Legal System (Perpetuate the myth of outlandish and unfair jury awards/allow companies to make unsafe products with no penalties): We should adopt comprehensive product liability reforms.

Ensure Uniform Employment Regulations (Prevent the labor movement from advancing fairness incrementally in the workplace by again, putting in place a one-size-fits-all set of rules/employee fairness “confusing”): State law should preclude the adoption of a patchwork of confusing and conflicting employment regulations by local units of government.


Keep Wisconsin Competitive (Do away with business taxes altogether/race to the bottom/detach corporate responsibility from local communities): We should strive to maintain the progress made in reducing Wisconsin’s overall state and local tax burden to keep us competitive among the 50 states in terms of taxation.

Encourage Balanced Budgeting (State budgeting that reduces funding flexibility of essential programs with generally accepted accounting approved by Republicans): Encourage balanced budgeting through adherence to generally accepted accounting principles.

Control Property Taxes (Again, a one-size-fits-all artificial cap on taxes unrelated to the economy, market and community need): Control property taxes imposed by municipalities, counties, technical college districts and other special districts, allowing for reasonable growth while keeping Wisconsin competitive with other states.

Understand and Manage Benefit Costs (Privatize government and do away with health benefits and retirement programs/be like the private sector and dump people off into under funded government programs/then cut funding for programs): Provide school districts and local governments with maximum flexibility in managing costs associated with health care and retirement plans, and encourage them to be competitive with the best plans available in the private sector.

Reduce Cost Shifting (Raise the cost of Medicaid by increasing payments to private insurers, making it insolvent): Support sufficient reimbursement for hospitals and clinics under the existing Medicaid program, and the leveraging of the state's fair share of federal matching funds in order to reduce the cost shift that currently occurs to patients and private insurers because of underpayment in that program.

Hey, wait a minute. Isn't this is the same plan that got us into this economic mess in the first place?

U.S. Gift to World- Wage Gap Economics

Because of NAFTA, GAT and the World Trade Organization, major industrialized nations that had strong self sustaning economies are now dependant on cheap labor and imported goods.

Canada, which has had a healthy economy and budget surplus’s, is now falling victim to this race to the bottom trade formula. From the Candian Press, “Canada's rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer and the middle class stagnates, according to 2005 census data released May 1, 2008, by Statistics Canada. Between 1980 and 2005, median earnings among Canada's top earners rose more than 16 per cent while those in the bottom fifth saw their wages dip by 20 per cent.

“The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives said the census report should set alarm bells ringing. The biggest economic boom since the 1960s has basically only boosted the rich…leaving the middle class stagnant and the poor worse off.”

“According to the centers senior economist, "In the 1960s, when the economy grew this rapidly, almost everybody got a bigger piece. In this generation of economic growth, the gains are accruing primarily to those on the top."

Sound familiar? The Bush administrations trade policies have ushered in this dramatic gap between the have’s and have nots. Working with other powerful governmental leaders, the citizen workers of these countries have been left out of the profit equation. Why governments refuse to get in on the action, collecting taxes and profiting from free market policies, is still a bit of a mystery to me. I can only surmise that government officials are merely setting themselves up for lucritive positions after public service.

New Democrat MPs said they are "alarmed and worried" about the data. "Most Canadians are stuck in neutral on income. The poorest of us are even worse off than we suspected." He said the economic and social policies of recent years have failed. "Successive Conservative and Liberal governments have blindly assumed that a rising tide lifts all boats," he said. "But obviously not all boats have risen and too many paddlers, in fact, have no boats."

One startling statistic: “Median earnings among those in the middle remained status quo, registering a mere 0.1 per cent increase over 25 years.” Imagine that, two and a half decades and a mere 0.1 per cent increase.

The Center’s conclusion? "It's a wakeup call for Canadians and their governments. You can't keep ignoring this, especially with financial storm clouds from the south moving into Canada. "This is not a sustainable trajectory."

That would make the U.S. that untoward neighbor, with it’s run down house, unkept yard and putrid smoke wafting over everyone in the community.