Posted on 02/15/2006 10:42:45 AM PST by SirLinksalot
Our hollow prosperity
--------------------------------------------------------
Posted: February 15, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
PATRICK BUCHANAN
© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Now that the U.S. trade deficit for 2005 has come in at $726 billion, the fourth straight all-time record, a question arises.
What constitutes failure for a free-trade policy? Or is there no such thing? Is free trade simply right no matter the results?
Last year, the United States ran a $202 billion trade deficit with China, the largest ever between two nations. We ran all-time record trade deficits with OPEC, the European Union, Japan, Canada and Latin America. The $50 billion deficit with Mexico was the largest since NAFTA passed and also the largest in history.
When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce illegal immigration.
None of this happened. Indeed, the opposite occurred. Mexico's standard of living is lower than it was in 1993, the U.S. trade surplus has vanished, and America is being invaded. Mexico is now the primary source of narcotics entering the United States.
Again, when can we say a free-trade policy has failed?
The Bushites point proudly to 4.6 million jobs created since May 2003, a 4.7 percent unemployment rate and low inflation.
Unfortunately, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts and analysts Charles McMillion and Ed Rubenstein have taken a close look at the figures and discovered that the foundation of the Bush prosperity rests on rotten timber.
The entire job increase since 2001 has been in the service sector – credit intermediation, health care, social assistance, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc. – and state and local government.
But, from January 2001 to January 2006, the United States lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of all we had. Over the past five years, we have suffered a net loss in goods-producing jobs.
"The decline in some manufacturing sectors has more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing than with a super-economy that is 'the envy of the world,'" writes Roberts.
Communications equipment lost 43 percent of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37 percent ... The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30 percent. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25 percent of its workforce.
How did this happen? Imports. The U.S. trade deficit in advanced technology jobs in 2005 hit an all-time high.
As for the "knowledge industry" jobs that were going to replace blue-collar jobs, it's not happening. The information sector lost 17 percent of all its jobs over the last five years.
In the same half-decade, the U.S. economy created only 70,000 net new jobs in architecture and engineering, while hundreds of thousands of American engineers remain unemployed.
If we go back to when Clinton left office, one finds that, in five years, the United States has created a net of only 1,054,000 private-sector jobs, while government added 1.1 million. But as many new private sector jobs are not full-time, McMillion reports, "the country ended 2005 with fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January 2001."
This is an economic triumph?
Had the United States not created the 1.4 million new jobs it did in health care since January 2001, we would have nearly half a million fewer private-sector jobs than when Bush first took the oath.
Ed Rubenstein of ESR Research Economic Consultants looks at the wage and employment figures and discovers why, though the Bushites were touting historic progress, 55 percent of the American people in a January poll rated the Bush economy only "fair" or "poor."
Not only was 2005's growth of 2 million jobs a gain of only 1.5 percent, anemic compared to the average 3.5 percent at this stage of other recoveries, the big jobs gains are going to immigrants.
Non-Hispanic whites, over 70 percent of the labor force, saw only a 1 percent employment increase in 2005. Hispanics, half of whom are foreign born, saw a 4.7 percent increase. As Hispanics will work for less in hospitals and hospices, and as waiters and waitresses, they are getting the new jobs.
But are not wages rising? Nope. When inflation is factored in, the Economic Policy Institute reports, "real wages fell by 0.5 percent over the last 12 months after falling 0.7 percent the previous 12 months."
If one looks at labor force participation – what share of the 227 million potential workers in America have jobs – it has fallen since 2002 for whites, blacks and Hispanics alike. Non-Hispanic whites are down to 63.4 percent, but black Americans have fallen to 57.7 percent.
What is going on? Hispanic immigrants are crowding out black Americans in the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled job market. And millions of our better jobs are being lost to imports and outsourcing.
The affluent free-traders, whose wealth resides in stocks in global companies, are enriching themselves at the expense of their fellow citizens and sacrificing the American worker on the altar of the Global Economy.
None dare call it economic treason.
And what do those people do with the money? They spend it. Eventually, someone's going to buy some American stuff with the money. Otherwise, they'll be left holding a bunch of worthless green paper.
Paul Craig Roberts has been and still is a conservative economist.
The point is Buchanan opposed Clinton trade policies (Free Trade, NAFTA), Gore trade policies and Bush 2 trade policies (CAFTA) which are all the same.
On the issue of trade it would be fair to say maybe the Republicans should nominate Gore, or maybe the Dems should invite Jeb to run on their ticket- BECAUSE THEY AGREE ON TRADE.
What percent of all that is inflation?
It's an agreement. Which is a law. It could be challenged as unconstitional, but otherwise it's just like any other law. Treaties have more weight than ordinary laws, NAFTA is not afforded those, as it is not a treaty.
Pat agrees with Bush.
Bush SOTU "I will ask Congress for $350 million to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, is within reach -- and America will help them achieve that goal. (Applause.)"
P.S. The topic of the column is trade, not Pat, not military action.
Funny. If you write articles that are a combination of Cindy Sheehan, Paul Krugman and Algore, I think you lose that "conservative" label.
Buchanan has a serious credibility problem on this issue. If this country weren't so damned affluent, nobody would have time to read anything written by some inside-the-Beltway snot who has never had a real job in his life. In fact, the term "talking head" is a job description that one only finds in societies that are affluent beyond belief.
P.S. No column hijacking, if you please.
Written by apologists for the deficit since 2000?
Not necessarily, as China has successfully shown with their 15 years pattern of hoarding.
Eventually, someone's going to buy some American stuff with the money. Otherwise, they'll be left holding a bunch of worthless green paper.
Apparently the Chinese are cool with that...so long as they get all our industry and technology.
On Jan 18th he insisted that Iran does not provide a nuclear threat and bemoans the attack in Pakistan that killed innocent women and children...and never once mentions the bad guys who were the target.
On Jan 25th he defends Iran again and insists we cannot take military action against them and attacks President Bush.
On Jan 30th he defends the Hamas election and attacks Isreal and President Bush.
On Feb 1st he writes an article demanding we fund Hamas...and takes his normal cheap shots at Isreal and President Bush.
He goes off the scale on Feb 3rd, including these brilliant remarks: "Having plunged us into an unnecessary war, Bush now confronts the real possibility of strategic defeat and a failed presidency. His victory in Iraq, like the wars of Wilson and FDR, has turned to ashes in our mouths. And like Truman's war in Korea and Kennedy's war in Vietnam, Bush's war has left America divided and her people regretting he ever led us in. But unlike the world wars, Korea and Vietnam, Bush cannot claim the enemy attacked us and we had no choice. Iraq is Bush's war."
Feb 8th, he writes an article insisting the we should not publish cartoons offensive to Muslims and is on the Sean Hannity radio show defending his position...he further insists that there is nothing wrong with publishing cartoons demeaning Christianity or the Hebrew faith.
Feb 11th...he's again deriding anyone who publishes cartoons offensive to Muslims...and attacking President Bush.
It's important that anyone not familiar with him and his agenda know a little more about what motivates pat and what he writes...hate.
The question should be: Does anyone understand that a capital account surplus is good?
ahhh crap LOL
well that was a time when I wasn't really paying attention, but at least I remembered the quote and the party :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.