New Propaganda from The Club for Growth (in China)

americaneconomicalert. ^ | Monday, August 20, 2007 | William R. Hawkins

[dennisw]

Beijing’s state-run Xinhua news service was quick to herald the latest lobbying effort on China’s behalf launched by the Club for Growth, a libertarian organization dedicated to electing public officials who agree with its free trade ideology. “More than 1,000 top American economists have signed a petition to urge Congress not to impose protectionist measures against China,” read the story filed by Xinhua from Washington on August 3.

What the Club for Growth is protesting are two bills passed by the Senate Finance and Banking Committees seeking to pressure Beijing to cease its currency manipulation, a practice that gives producers in China an unfair competitive advantage both in export markets and at home. China sets the value of the yuan by fiat, not by the market. It is thus rather odd, and intellectually dishonest, for the Club to defend Chinese government policy on the grounds that it is somehow an example of free trade or free markets. China’s largest banks are state-owned, as is nearly two-thirds of its industry. The country is run by a throughly protectionist elite.

The motivation of a gaggle of libertarian economists – in signing a petition defending the actions of a mercantilist and Communist dictatorship in its pursuit of greater national wealth and power – is hard to fathom as it defies rationality. It is best understood as another collateral political effort by those transnational corporations who exploit libertarian “principals” and naivete to cover their own pursuit of profit – in this case as handmaidens of Beijing. Thus the organization would be better named “The Club for Growth in China.” As Fortune magazine has reported, among Fortune 500 executives, China is “absolutely center stage right now” – which therefore makes it the focus of the Club too.

The petition is filled with intellectual errors, indicating it was written by the political hacks at the Club. Certainly these should have been corrected by the scholars recruited to sign the petition. But they are also apparently too ideologically driven to view the situation objectively.

For example, the petition states, “Over the past six years, total trade between the two countries has soared, growing from $116 billion in 2000 to almost $343 billion in 2006. That's an average growth rate of almost 20% a year. This marvelous growth has led to more affordable goods, higher productivity, strong job growth, and a higher standard of living for both countries.”

This is the old device of citing a misleading statistic to hide what is really going on. U.S.-China trade grew, but the growth was and continues to be extremely lopsided. Of the $343 billion in trade cited for 2006, only $52 billion were American exports. $291 were Chinese exports, giving China a nearly 6-1 advantage. No wonder the Club for Growth in China wanted to mask the dismal U.S. performance behind aggregated statistics. And it is basic Econ. 101 that a large trade deficit slows growth and reduces job opportunities in the country that suffers it.

In the early 1990s, globalization cheerleaders argued that “free trade” would open “big emerging markets” to American-made goods, thus bolstering domestic growth and income. A decade of unprecedented trade deficits has turned that argument into hash. So now defenders of this academic sophistry have fallen back on the notion that “affordable goods” are the most important aspect of trade. Yet, no argument could be more logically twisted. Consumption is a use for wealth and income, it is not the source of wealth or income. It is the production and sale of goods and services that generate income. And income that is saved (i.e., not used for consumption) and invested in expanded production is what generates long-term wealth. This is what China is doing, using the American market to transfer money across the Pacific into their economy. Americans are being deceived into believing consumption financed by debt is the path to a higher standard of living. That kind of profligate behavior is unsustainable as any real economist knows. Thus, when the petition claims, “China currently supplies American consumers with inexpensive goods and low-interest rate loans,” it is marketing distorted thinking that is dangerous to America’s economic health.

“As economists, we understand the vital and beneficial role that free trade plays in the world economy” reads the petition. But for “understand” the signers really mean “imagine.” These economists are speaking from ideology, the dream of a harmonious world run by business calculation that maximizes global efficiency. But that is not the world we live in. The world remains divided into nations and communities. People live in these societies, not in academic models. Firms and investors operate across borders – and problems can spread across borders too (as with the subprime mortgage meltdown), but the impact is felt by real people living real lives. Economic activity and growth are not evenly spread over across the globe. Only a handful of major countries account for the vast majority of economic output, and they determine the destiny of the world.

Economics as a field of study only goes back to the 18th century. It was grounded in the connection between wealth and power. Great Britain was its birthplace because after the Seven Years War, the British Empire expanded rapidly. “Britain owed its new lands and international preeminence to economic sinews of power; it needed statesmen who understood this infrastructure,” argues Harvard business professor Nancy F. Koehn in her book The Power of Commerce (Cornell University Press, 1994). Professor Koehn notes, “The first men to call themselves political economists tried to provide such an understanding.” But, over time, the profession became overly academic and increasingly abstract, retreating into the Ivory Tower, where more pleasing theoretical models of the world could be substituted for the real and messy thing.

Yet, the first law of economics has not been repealed. It is still taught to students on their first day of class, even if its uncomfortable implications are then papered over. It is that there is never enough to go around. Not all needs and desires can be met, thus choices must be made. This is the economic problem of scarcity, which can be lessened somewhat over time but never solved. Our reach always exceeds our grasp. Even in a country as advanced as the United States, nearly everyone wants more than they have, and many needs now considered basic are not met for all citizens. Conditions in most foreign lands are much more harsh.

It is by the competitive process that some people get to do more than others. They obtain more resources and put them to better use. They build for the future and beat out others who are less capable, or less attentive. Though business firms carry on much of this contest, their actions, both victories and defeats, affect the societies in which they operate. It is the duty of government leaders to orchestrate events so that the bulk of victories go to their own people, to enrich their own national society. There is no “world economy” only an “international economy,” which is an arena for commercial (and political) competition. It is irresponsible to speak of “free trade,” or even “fair trade,” as if the outcome did not matter.

Beijing understands what is at stake. Thus, the regime there reinforces the advantages they have in a nearly inexhaustible pool of cheap labor with subsidies, a misaligned currency, massive intellectual property theft, the complete neglect of environmental costs, and a diplomatic campaign aimed at securing resources and markets overseas. They are playing to win. The Club fo Growth in China wants the United States to stand still and never impose any “retaliatory trade measures against China” that would address Chinese protectionism and tilt the odds back in America’s favor.

Hopefully, the transparent nature of the Club for Growth in China’s petition, geared as it is to the protection of those rootless corporations in league with the Beijing regime, will repel rather than persuade the U.S. Congress. The Currency Reform and Financial Markets Act of 2007 (S. 1677) was approved by the Senate Banking committee on a bipartisan 17 - 4 vote on August 1. Only a few days earlier, the Senate Finance Committee voted out the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1607) by an even more impressive 20 - 1 margin. These votes indicate a growing – and fully justified – impatience with Beijing’s unfair trade tactics on both sides of the aisle.

[dennisw]

Reason #73492 why I don’t like Cato Institute style libertarians. I’ll bet these jerks are 100% for NAFTA and the Mexican trucks now entering the United States

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Ping of interest.

[rellimpank]

—bflr—

[pissant]

Now you know the real reason the HairClub for Growth and CATO do not Hunter. Hunter intends to treat our enemies as enemies.

[RKV]

Reason #73493 why I LIKE Cato style libertarians. Don’t blame them for what Bush is doing on non-english speaking truck drivers. “Fair trade” as practiced by most Buchananites really means that some politically successful businessmen get subsidized by the rest of us. Take sugar as an example. US tariffs keep out foreign competitors who are willing to sell sugar at 1/3rd less than we pay now. Why? Because a few very rich people benefit from this situation, and they buy enough politicians to keep the tariffs in place. We’d be better off if we competed where we are good and let others sell us the stuff they are better off. I bet you think economics is a zero sum game, too! You might try taking an economics class or two, because this is just not the case. Many populists who get the dynamic effects of tax cuts (cut rates, raise revenues) don’t seem to be able to generalize that to macroeconomics. And yes there are some situations where government intervention is important (e.g. intellectual property rights), so its not an all or nothing scenario. And yes, I’m for NAFTA too - better to keep Mexicans in Mexico. If we enforced our immigration laws like we enforce our dope laws we’d have many fewer illegals in the US today. And yes there is a moral and economic reason to keep them out. The US is our property - simple enough.

[Regulator]

The Cato shills have now shifted their defense of Chinese currency manipulation.

Griswold was recently interviewed saying that "it's necessary" so that "China could establish itself".

In other words, the argument will always mutate to defend foreign countries doing whatever they need to protect their own interests at the expense of the U.S. and other Western countries.

In the end, guys like Steve Moore and Dan Griswold are classic liberals: they hate the people and societies they grew up in, they always felt alienated from them, and they will do and say anything to undermine and destroy them.

You really have to ask....why don't they move to Beijing, their little paradise, and see how the Chinese will treat them?

Don't think their status as Important Round Eyes will last too long there. Once the Chinese figure out that they're no longer Useful Idiots, they'll be thrown to the wolves.

[Regulator]

The US is our property - simple enough

Not for long, shill boy.

Google the name "Fanjul" if you want to see where Mr. Bush stands on Sugar subsidies.

[Toddsterpatriot]

China’s largest banks are state-owned, as is nearly two-thirds of its industry. The country is run by a throughly protectionist elite.

Yes, the Chinese government controls their economy. Obviously, we need to give our government more control over our economy. LOL!

The petition is filled with intellectual errors, indicating it was written by the political hacks at the Club. Certainly these should have been corrected by the scholars recruited to sign the petition. But they are also apparently too ideologically driven to view the situation objectively.

For example, the petition states, “Over the past six years, total trade between the two countries has soared, growing from $116 billion in 2000 to almost $343 billion in 2006. That's an average growth rate of almost 20% a year. This marvelous growth has led to more affordable goods, higher productivity, strong job growth, and a higher standard of living for both countries.”

It's an error to say growth from $116 billion to $343 billion was almost 20% a year?

U.S.-China trade grew

Yes, almost 20% a year. LOL!

And it is basic Econ. 101 that a large trade deficit slows growth and reduces job opportunities in the country that suffers it.

Sure is basic. Slowed us down to $13 trillion in GDP and 4.6% unemployment. Stop the madness!!!!

In the early 1990s, globalization cheerleaders argued that “free trade” would open “big emerging markets” to American-made goods, thus bolstering domestic growth and income.

These things happened. Shhhhh.

Thus, when the petition claims, “China currently supplies American consumers with inexpensive goods and low-interest rate loans,” it is marketing distorted thinking that is dangerous to America’s economic health.

They supply us with expensive goods and high-interest rate loans?

But for “understand” the signers really mean “imagine.”

You're projecting again.

[Last Dakotan]

Of the $343 billion in trade cited for 2006, only $52 billion were American exports.

Better yet - the top US export in dollars - scrap metal.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

CATO and libertarians are responsible for the high taxes and regulations here that gives China the upper-hand?

We can compete with anyone. But nobody can win when their own government is tying their hands behind their back.

[dennisw]

You are hallucinating buddy. Any nation that runs a 850 billion dollar annual trade deficit is not protectionist. In fact it’s quite the opposite. You wouldn’t know free trade if it jumped up and bit you in the a$$

Wouldn’t bother me one bit if we enacted tariffs on Chinese goods. Only problem is the WTO we signed on to (thanks to idiots like CATO) makes this difficult

[Last Dakotan]

Please explain how forcing the Chinese currency to trade at what the open market values it at protects only certain connected parties.

[dennisw]

Of the $343 billion in trade cited for 2006, only $52 billion were American exports.

Better yet - the top US export to China in dollars - scrap metal.

The US is behaving like a 3rd world country that must send its iron& steel scrap to another more technologically advanced country (China) to make steel for us

Yes I know we buy steel from many countries and make some ourselves. That we don't get most of our steel from China

[Toddsterpatriot]

Better yet - the top US export in dollars - scrap metal.

---

MAIN: A.E.S. | Reference | Regulations | Statistics | Feedback | Search STATISTICS: Press Releases | Trade Highlights | Country/Product Data | State Export Data | Historical Series | Special Request

U.S. Exports to China
from 2002 to 2006
By 5-digit End-Use Code

(In thousands of dollars)

Additional information

End-Use Code	Value 2002	Value 2003	Value 2004	Value 2005	Value 2006
(00000) Wheat	26,081	35,471	495,118	79,000	22,725
(00010) Rice	962	143	241	239	428
(00100) Soybeans	995,837	2,888,802	2,328,833	2,249,009	2,529,831
(00110) Oilseeds, food oils	2,481	51,218	7,599	5,667	60,659
(00200) Corn	2,753	627	998	737	22,575
(00210) Sorghum, barley, oats	7	175	13	16	0
(00220) Animal feeds, n.e.c.	49,660	45,049	18,546	27,880	29,654
(00300) Meat, poultry, etc.	118,296	172,281	99,785	253,130	426,806
(00310) Dairy products and eggs	27,199	28,442	38,542	41,547	80,860
(00320) Fruits, frozen juices	42,834	54,041	66,936	109,516	111,429
(00330) Vegetables	35,240	42,911	50,181	39,345	54,497
(00340) Nuts	19,892	16,716	22,924	50,795	53,338
(00350) Bakery products	28,093	44,208	53,434	44,865	48,107
(00360) Other foods	64,197	188,478	220,373	115,088	132,201
(00370) Wine and related products	3,606	3,137	5,710	6,153	9,564
(01000) Fish and shellfish	169,727	224,159	314,654	405,072	484,012
(01010) Alcoholic beverages, excluding wine	2,044	2,395	2,722	3,388	7,409
(01020) Nonagricultural foods, etc.	18,701	36,368	33,772	34,033	36,840
(10000) Cotton, raw	147,652	763,697	1,431,259	1,405,973	2,066,926
(10100) Tobacco, unmanufactured	471	4,448	22,832	1,905	61,480
(10120) Hides and skins	394,233	456,539	524,112	628,708	790,156
(10130) Agric. industry-unmanufactured	39,691	98,625	55,003	52,650	80,073
(10140) Agric. farming-unmanufactured	30,784	41,779	27,770	45,756	48,584
(10150) Agriculture-manufactured, other	53,414	75,030	82,164	79,626	93,292
(11010) Metallurgical grade coal	513	134	33,345	35	148
(11020) Coal and fuels, other	1,675	2,889	2,482	7,136	10,357
(11100) Crude oil	0	0	27,163	11,170	0
(11110) Fuel oil	41,695	4,605	11,887	21,776	50,927
(11120) Petroleum products, other	68,174	151,536	200,905	199,335	247,523
(11130) Natural gas liquids	1,221	38,453	51,844	30,825	12,085
(11300) Nuclear fuel materials	4,064	3,660	3,677	3,956	4,330
(12000) Steelmaking materials	463,341	710,924	984,441	1,511,639	1,692,182
(12100) Iron and steel mill products	30,131	389,852	128,406	242,273	135,686
(12110) Iron and steel products, other	29,192	52,262	111,329	190,972	259,128
(12200) Aluminum and alumina	240,417	314,132	487,786	895,794	1,704,875
(12210) Copper	305,480	626,464	622,432	932,360	1,862,202
(12260) Nonmonetary gold	360	999	1,133	2,657	2,593
(12270) Precious metals, other	41,723	44,274	64,153	100,106	305,485
(12290) Nonferrous metals, other	75,657	151,684	275,145	751,608	1,144,072
(12300) Finished metal shapes	132,455	157,576	269,222	367,022	457,927
(12420) Pulpwood and woodpulp	424,069	612,564	769,913	1,026,096	1,482,550
(12430) Newsprint	380,413	404,010	462,703	456,914	425,817
(12500) Plastic materials	731,540	933,584	1,381,725	1,834,600	2,178,948
(12510) Chemicals-fertilizers	700,909	483,300	338,464	399,938	281,785
(12530) Chemicals-inorganic	135,527	138,639	282,369	395,597	469,343
(12540) Chemicals-organic	539,157	1,010,649	1,442,375	1,401,317	1,350,938
(12550) Chemicals-other	375,090	463,950	629,400	669,446	820,532
(12600) Cotton fiber cloth	12,956	19,087	19,465	20,197	24,245
(12620) Manmade cloth	243,997	287,277	348,079	431,258	451,232
(12630) Hair, waste materials	11,670	16,334	24,296	32,011	46,009
(12640) Finished textile supplies	39,995	58,623	93,258	112,032	170,357
(12650) Leather and furs	52,506	70,516	94,971	88,265	127,548
(12700) Synthetic rubber-primary	76,810	120,645	176,922	256,153	367,807
(12720) Nonmetallic minerals	21,074	24,790	24,160	29,560	18,961
(12750) Industrial rubber products	14,809	19,200	27,763	45,479	59,267
(12760) Mineral supplies-manufactured	86,693	144,744	203,884	213,811	335,580
(12765) Tapes, audio and visual	173,654	118,128	167,990	229,561	313,465
(12770) Other industrial supplies	309,036	399,101	516,617	540,327	664,679
(13100) Logs and lumber	195,191	220,265	331,810	405,643	503,065
(13110) Wood supplies, manufactured	11,880	19,624	20,153	30,255	28,906
(13200) Glass-plate, sheet, etc.	17,568	25,143	32,133	32,815	40,400
(13210) Shingles, molding, wallboard	71,130	67,516	93,714	93,897	111,357
(13220) Nontextile floor tiles	2,156	2,531	2,734	9,218	11,334
(20000) Generators, accessories	149,375	184,006	286,690	356,714	428,098
(20005) Electric apparatus	528,672	554,288	816,755	921,292	1,269,973
(21000) Drilling & oilfield equipment	157,256	146,366	211,913	228,247	326,886
(21010) Specialized mining	87,976	87,690	92,502	100,321	118,286
(21030) Excavating machinery	103,812	149,818	227,509	190,159	171,138
(21040) Nonfarm tractors and parts	8,695	6,450	20,206	23,801	30,530
(21100) Industrial engines	258,499	340,959	845,466	861,906	798,432
(21110) Food, tobacco machinery	71,212	93,703	127,206	122,114	131,633
(21120) Metalworking machine tools	394,218	331,138	650,639	576,571	807,659
(21130) Textile, sewing machines	71,741	97,875	77,917	103,623	116,603
(21140) Wood, glass, plastic	152,500	178,217	287,957	179,375	209,778
(21150) Pulp and paper machinery	89,949	111,689	133,157	117,657	146,056
(21160) Measuring, testing, control instruments	539,571	703,480	996,202	1,073,031	1,333,293
(21170) Materials handling equipment	99,248	125,359	199,216	226,257	255,847
(21180) Industrial machines, other	1,106,265	1,167,534	1,911,342	1,532,734	1,976,961
(21190) Photo, service industry machinery	156,582	301,337	181,141	222,385	259,912
(21200) Agricultural machinery, equipment	54,460	63,042	52,807	91,375	94,658
(21300) Computers	289,990	264,559	302,252	360,670	404,009
(21301) Computer accessories	884,009	1,006,233	1,070,259	1,427,037	1,819,796
(21320) Semiconductors	1,589,522	2,447,029	2,938,303	3,363,899	5,876,315
(21400) Telecommunications equipment	1,074,342	916,487	1,020,814	1,004,259	1,276,616
(21500) Business machines and equipment	43,194	41,432	52,301	71,656	83,739
(21600) Laboratory testing instruments	171,907	228,187	275,451	323,308	404,658
(21610) Medicinal equipment	368,173	520,954	581,798	715,614	715,062
(22000) Civilian aircraft	3,146,162	2,148,172	1,617,532	3,796,234	5,301,621
(22010) Parts-civilian aircraft	290,336	292,271	345,466	570,526	826,906
(22020) Engines-civilian aircraft	203,404	248,883	157,552	147,443	215,427
(22100) Railway transportation equipment	14,689	34,084	54,287	89,359	220,034
(22200) Vessels, excluding scrap	192	9,073	110	191	62
(22210) Commercial vessels, other	1,163	681	17,500	8,702	1,927
(22220) Marine engines, parts	11,576	10,006	8,552	18,731	28,296
(30000) Passenger cars, new and used	25,895	56,754	113,401	398,625	559,419
(30100) Trucks, buses and special purpose vehicles	41,739	93,242	46,356	52,847	79,942
(30200) Engines and engine parts (carburetors, pistons, ri	52,203	72,446	107,703	97,262	121,046
(30210) Bodies and chassis for passenger cars	6,681	17,454	17,327	4,334	5,967
(30220) Automotive tires and tubes	278	619	9,810	37,638	8,761
(30230) Other parts and accessories of vehicles	287,348	341,706	503,241	509,962	671,075
(40000) Apparel, household goods - textile	22,163	18,106	29,242	45,300	30,701
(40030) Apparel,household goods-nontextile	48,205	49,788	47,466	55,572	70,529
(40050) Sports apparel and gear	1,393	1,678	2,037	3,359	4,664
(40100) Pharmaceutical preparations	163,309	162,380	146,677	229,328	275,086
(40110) Books, printed matter	37,558	40,854	45,148	53,892	61,855
(40120) Toiletries and cosmetics	25,007	31,917	47,444	73,328	110,874
(40130) Tobacco, manufactured	114	1,904	3,985	3,806	2,878
(40140) Writing and art supplies	113,218	90,814	78,705	95,303	120,263
(41000) Furniture, household goods, etc.	17,795	24,517	34,430	40,613	55,366
(41010) Glassware, chinaware	3,662	2,495	9,582	6,456	6,216
(41020) Cookware, cutlery, tools	12,021	9,327	16,250	20,314	15,867
(41030) Household appliances	80,179	129,287	173,825	178,600	170,096
(41040) Rugs	3,000	3,188	3,957	4,895	9,534
(41050) Other household goods	151,931	157,272	213,610	432,812	482,559
(41110) Pleasure boats and motors	4,834	7,564	17,953	42,664	52,009
(41120) Toys/games/sporting goods	49,986	48,456	85,798	99,567	135,339
(41140) Musical instruments	25,230	22,682	50,429	26,914	19,448
(41200) TV's, VCR's, etc.	79,115	129,382	165,393	126,206	111,359
(41210) Stereo equipment, etc.	34,144	32,413	44,226	179,705	244,189
(41220) Records, tapes, and disks	68,145	88,033	92,793	117,981	141,197
(41300) Numismatic coins	281	952	198	1,336	81
(41310) Jewelry, etc	9,675	7,050	9,894	12,501	11,392
(41320) Artwork, antiques, stamps, etc.	52,558	42,588	24,840	21,571	38,496
(42000) Nursery stock, etc.	1,514	647	1,687	1,789	3,362
(42100) Gem diamonds	9,266	15,019	17,658	21,117	28,804
(50010) Aircraft launching gear, parachutes, etc.	830	224	623	626	633
(50020) Engines and turbines for military aircraft	5,068	2,524	4,169	7,544	5,025
(50030) Military trucks, armored vehicles, etc.	46	0	6	0	0
(50050) Tanks, artillery, missiles, rockets, guns and ammu	92	141	5,176	629	355
(50060) Military apparel and footwear	12	452	7	14	299
(50070) Parts for military-type goods	10,991	7,926	10,084	9,804	7,227
(60000) Minimum value shipments	122,695	166,611	221,087	247,138	325,807
(60010) Miscellaneous domestic exports and special transac	103,144	94,123	117,268	135,587	161,146
TOTAL	22,127,790	28,367,943	34,744,053	41,925,281	55,224,163

---

I thought it was semiconductors and aircraft.

[dennisw]

In the end, guys like Steve Moore and Dan Griswold are classic liberals: they hate the people and societies they grew up in, they always felt alienated from them, and they will do and say anything to undermine and destroy them.

In the old days they might have been a positive because they advocated economic freedom within the United States. But they worship today's global markets same as they worship all markets. Thus making them citizens of the world with no particular allegiance to the nation they were born in, that keeps them free via the armed force of our military

Our economic might also keeps us free but that economic might and independence is being strangled by trade deficits and open borders

 

Foreign Acquisitions of U.S. Businesses

Top 20 Industries

Transactions are from July, 1978 through May, 2007

Industries	Number of Acquisitions	Total Acquisition Amount
Oil and gas; petroleum refining	486	$139,627,604,886
Telecommunications	231	$132,318,247,932
Business services	2,078	$115,947,476,108
Food and kindred products	433	$90,080,453,581
Insurance	327	$88,063,934,486
Investment & commodity firms,dealers,exchanges	447	$74,598,188,567
Drugs	361	$68,086,906,884
Electronic and electrical equipment	598	$65,908,948,889
Printing, publishing, and allied services	520	$62,886,513,881
Electric, gas, and water distribution	162	$61,923,236,475
Chemicals and allied products	539	$58,254,903,022
Transportation equipment	147	$57,715,898,913
Commercial banks, bank holding companies	127	$53,466,561,207
Measuring, medical, photo equipment; clocks	625	$48,614,502,971
Communications equipment	221	$41,793,792,556
Metal and metal products	474	$38,822,650,242
Real estate; mortgage bankers and brokers	273	$38,630,164,970
Mining	289	$37,727,639,623
Prepackaged software	954	$35,607,017,744
Computer and office equipment	254	$34,116,757,735

 

[AuntB]

Club for Growth...Bah!

The Club for Growth and the 2008 Presidential Race - Know thy enemy
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/02/club-for-growth-and-2008-presidential.html

[snip]
“The Club for Growth is a section 527 political organization and an affiliated political action committee that raises money for candidates who support an anti-tax and limited-government agenda. It was created by former Cato Institute fellow Stephen Moore. “

Stephen Moore. That’s a name anyone involved in the battle to secure our nations borders needs to know. And where you find Moore, you find Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich and common agendas. Often, those agendas are not ‘conservative’.

Moore has written articles in favor of increased immigration to the U.S., and has debated against immigration restrictionists. In one article, Moore favorably cited a speech at Cato by Rep. Dick Armey, R-TX, who said he believes the U.S. “should be thinking about increasing legal immigration.” Moore worked on studies for the wing immigration advocacy group, the National Immigration Forum, which favors amnesty for illegal aliens.

In 1996, Moore along with Grover Norquist helped defeat any measures aimed at enforcement in an immigration reform bill.

Marcus Stern describes Moores involvement in an award winning article.

The coalition was a juggernaut that fought virtually any verification initiative. Because Republicans control Congress, conservative lobbyists were especially influential. The fact that some limited, voluntary verification projects stayed in the bill at all outraged some conservatives.

“I view it as the camel’s nose under the tent for a national ID card,” said Stephen Moore, an economist with the Cato Institute who lobbied against the bill. “The theme we played to Republicans was that if you’re trying to roll back big government, you shouldn’t be instituting this new police-state power.”

Social conservatives like Norquist and libertarians like Moore don’t see illegal immigration as a major problem.

“Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country, and I’m not willing to sacrifice some of our freedoms to try to keep out immigrants, especially when I don’t think it’s going to work very well,” said Moore.

He added that spending $3 billion-plus a year to fund the Immigration and Naturalization Service “probably is a waste of money. But this is a political issue. And the way you deal with illegal immigration is you increase the INS budget. It doesn’t do a lot, but at least politicians on both sides can go home and say, `Well, how can you say I’m not doing anything about immigration? I increased the INS budget.’ “

What you don’t do, he said, is involve employers in enforcement.

“Sometimes in politics you pass feel-good measures,” Moore said. “And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Passing a bill that’s mostly window dressing is a way of defusing public alarm about something. And in states like California, illegal immigration is perceived as a big problem.”

Working closely with Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute, Cesar Conda (former domestic advisor to Dick Cheney) circulated a statement against Prop. 187 of California in the nineties.

And what have Moore and his associate Grover Norquist been up to lately? More of the same.

Last fall the Club for Growth worked against conservative republican candidate Robert Vasquez, an ardent illegal alien opponent by funding his opposition.

Moore, along with Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tamar Jacoby and other amnesty advocates penned a letter to the Wall St Journal proclaiming Bush’s guest worker plan as “a humane, orderly, and economically sensible approach to migration.”

On September 19, 2005, the Federal Election Commission filed suit against the Club for Growth for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act for failing to register as a political action committee in the 2000, 2002, and 2004 congressional elections.

You can be sure that both Stephen Moore and Grover Norquist are working full time to keep our borders open and promote any and all trade/labor agreements whether they benefit the USA and it’s people or not.

Moore said this about Norquist. “From the moment he gets up to the moment he gets to bed, he thinks, ‘How am I going to hurt the other team?”

Whoever the Club for Growth decides to push for president, you can be sure they don’t believe it if that candidate pretends to want to secure the border and implement sane trade policy.

Buyer, BEWARE.

It should come as no surprise that the Club for Growth would come out against Duncan Hunter.

Wear it as a badge of honor, Congressman!

[dennisw]

Treachery, thy name is Club for Growth. I’m for economic growth but not their kind which trashes America’s sovereignty. These money grubbers cannot see past the $50 bills they clutch in their hands

[AuntB]

Yep.

[RKV]

Matters not where Bush stands on sugar subsidies. Matters where the Congress stands, since he can’t do anything for or against on his own.

[Regulator]

Illegal immigration is part of the price we pay for being both a prosperous and a free country

And you can bet that Moore don't live in no neighborhood where the illegals rule.

Justice would be deporting that jerk to Mexico where he would see how long his life lasts with his mouth open as much as it is here.

The Mexican Caudillos wouldn't be amused at pasty faced little Stevie pontificating about how they should give up their market monopolies and just compete with the world.

And what they would do next wouldn't be amusing to anyone.

[RKV]

I guess you wouldn’t mind another Great Depression then would you? Might google Smoot-Hawley. High tariffs were lousy idea then and are a lousy idea now. If we want competitive advantage, which along with productivity make for a rich country, then maybe we ought to take a long hard look at our legal and regulatory systems and see what we can do there. Tort reform in and of itself would make a huge difference in our competitiveness. But no, we have to kowtow to the lawyers.

[Regulator]

Oh...OK...so when someone calls your bluff on one of your icons, you back up and say, no no, it's not him?

Right. The President has no trade influence, and he's just a helpless bystander. And the governor of Florida is chopped liver. Got it!

Whatta laugh. You got no arguments, shill.

[dennisw]

Aside from all your anti tariff bluff and bluster what’s your think on our 850 billion dollar trade deficit? Is this of any concern to you? Are you in hock up to your eyeballs? Do borrow money to buy consumer items?

[RKV]

And you have no economic education apparently, nor one in government.

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 29 years they bought $1.345 trillion. About $46 billion a year. If that isn’t proof we’re doomed, I don’t know what is.

[Regulator]

Might google Smoot-Hawley

Even more laughable.

The current Federal Reserve chairman wrote his dissertation showing how monetary policy precipitated and prolonged the Depression. Smoot-Hawley was a minor sideshow.

Here, dimbulb: let me give you the answer.

The economy of a country with a national bank and legal currency (what some call a 'fiat currency') is governed by non-linear systems, whose behavior can be disproportionately influenced by small perturbations. Thus it requires robust disturbance rejection and stable feedback loops, or else behavior will depart to indstability and divergence.

Some will understand that.

But not you, since you only have slogans to fall back on.

[Regulator]

And you have no economic education apparently, nor one in government

Oooohhh, and you do?

Whatta joke.

Answer the last question, dimbulb. Do so with the appropriate equations to contradict me.

[BfloGuy]

It is the duty of government leaders to orchestrate events so that the bulk of victories go to their own people, to enrich their own national society.

This is the line that should give you protectionists cause to sit and think for a moment. Government leaders "orchestrating" events has a dismal history of failure.

Much better I think that each of us trades with whomever we can get the best deal from -- no matter what country he's located in.

[RKV]

Well, I only have an MBA and am a self-made millionaire. That’s my qualifications pal. As for equations, I doubt you could handle the math, since obviously can’t handle even the verbal logic of macroeconomics.

[AuntB]

Much better I think that each of us trades with whomever we can get the best deal from -- no matter what country he's located in.

And how much should the rest of us have to subsidize your cheap goods for...millions more in inspectors of imports, recalls of tainted products, etc. etc. How much should the rest of us pay for your cheap goods?

[RKV]

And so international trade had no effect? Not the case. Smoot-Hawley, and the polticial run-up to it surely made a difference. As to our current Fed chairman, Greenspan he is not.

[Regulator]

I only have an MBA

Woopee. Kiddie math for the intellectually deprived.

I'm real unimpressed there, junior.

By the way...where's the equations? Whatsa matter, can't put 'em together?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Smoot-Hawley was a minor sideshow.

A sideshow that made things better or worse?

[Carry_Okie]

Beijing’s state-run Xinhua news service was quick to herald the latest lobbying effort on China’s behalf launched by the Club for Growth, a libertarian organization dedicated to electing public officials who agree with its free trade ideology.

Hmmm... something's wrong here...

Beijing’s state-run Xinhua news service was quick to herald the latest lobbying effort on China’s behalf launched by the Club for Growth, a libertarian organization dedicated to electing public officials who agree with subsidizing America's enemies with its bogus free trade ideology.

There, fixed it.

Therewith subsidizing the defense industry to defend ourselves from our own stupidity when China prepares to attack us, largely from within via their Mexican surrogates. One wonders if these witless mental midgets at the CFG understand that the resulting impoverished American taxpayer won't be able to foot the bill for their sponsors' protection.

[RKV]

Do your own homework. I’m just trying to make a simple point, not give a dissertation. Go ahead and believe the fallacies you believe.

[Will88]

“The current Federal Reserve chairman wrote his dissertation showing how monetary policy precipitated and prolonged the Depression. Smoot-Hawley was a minor sideshow.”

It’s amazing how often Smoot-Hawley is thrown out as a major cause of the Great Depression by those who seem to have little or no understanding of that era. It was a liquidity and banking crisis, caused more by the recently formed Federal Reserve than any other factor. Heres a good excerpt and link the Smoot-Hawley true believers could learn something from:

“The great depression and its offspring, the New Deal, could both have been avoided if the Federal Reserve had performed the task assigned to it. All the Federal Reserve had to do to avoid the Depression and the subversion of the American constitutional order was to purchase $1 billion in government securities during the 10-month period from December 1929 to October 1930. The result would have been an increase, instead of decrease, in high-powered money, and the banking crisis that began in the autumn of 1930 would not have occurred.”

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3476271.html

The Fed SHRUNK the money supply by 20%, the exact opposite of the action needed. Is that a policy the Smoot-Hawley boys think the Fed should use to combat recessions, or potential depressions now?

[BlazingArizona]

“Fair trade” as practiced by most Buchananites really means that some politically successful businessmen get subsidized by the rest of us. Take sugar as an example. US tariffs keep out foreign competitors who are willing to sell sugar at 1/3rd less than we pay now. Why? Because a few very rich people benefit from this situation, and they buy enough politicians to keep the tariffs in place.

An even better example is pharma companies. This issue is going to be a dead loss for the GOP in 2008.

[Toddsterpatriot]

An even better example is pharma companies.

Pharma companies are keeping foreign drugs from entering the US market?

[BlazingArizona]

Pharma companies are keeping foreign drugs from entering the US market?

That too, but the problem that affects most of us is that they are keeping AMERICAN drugs from being bought for less from overseas suppliers by Americans.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“The Cato shills have now shifted their defense of Chinese currency manipulation.”

Wrong way of looking at this.

Try this way - they oppose setting tariffs here in the US as punishment.

Tariffs don’t help us and hurt them. That’s a very naive and incorrect view.

[dennisw]

In 1930 trade was something like 5% of GDP. If in fact Smoot Hawley set off a trade war I fail to see how this produced or prolonged the Great Depression

My quick guess is 25% of current US GDP is trade related

[ProCivitas]

So, who's the 'Club For Economic Treason & Growth' backing for the Presidential race? Any Senate/Congressional candidates strongly favored by them?

Happy Labor Day!

[dennisw]

Stick your head back in the hole Mr Ostrich

[Ben Ficklin]

"Stick your head back in the hole"

Pull your head out of the hole and look a the planned expansion/growth of the Pacific ports of Canada, Mexico, and the US.

[Will88]

I attended college before the free trade debates became common in the public forum. I learned about the stock market crash, later runs on banks, bank failures and the liquidity crisis. The explanation of older relatives was: “Nobody had any money.”

I never heard of Smoot-Hawley until around the time of the NAFTA debate. I believe it rose to prominence as something to be thrown out any time anyone suggested any form of fair trade as opposed to the 10,000 page “free trade” agreements. It’s now thrown out in a knee-jerk fashion as a major factor, if not the cause of the Great Depression. I believe was a minor sideshow as you said earlier, and the Fed action by far the greatest cause.

[dennisw]

Pull your head out of the hole and look a the planned expansion/growth of the Pacific ports of Canada, Mexico, and the US.

You mean to bring in more Chinese and Asian crap to make the trade deficit even larger?

[Ben Ficklin]

Well Mr dennisw, I knew willie green and you are no willie green.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah, that’s exactly like keeping foreign sugar out. LOL!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Facts are hard. LOL!