If we had slapped big tariffs on China and India in the 2000s

[Le Jacquelope]

America wouldn't be in this economic mess that we're in now.

Just between 2001-2004 we lost 2.7 million jobs to offshoring. These weren't jobs that disappeared completely - someone's still doing this work and sending these goods to American stores. They're just not being done by Americans anymore.

Can anyone tell me the net effect of 2.7 million manufacturing jobs reappearing in America out of nowhere, during this recession?

And I haven't even gotten into all the Tech industry jobs we could get back by tariffing India. Nor haven I gotten into the jobs we've lost SINCE 2004, or BEFORE 2001.


We'd skyrocket right out of this mess if we slapped high tariffs on China and India.

Free trade is a scam: Jobs can move around the world, but workers are held captive in their home country, if not because Governments restrict immigration or emigration then because it's far more expensive for workers to move.

You want proof that offshoring has ruined America? You're soaking in it.


And for those of you who would argue that China would call in our debt: they're going to do that anyway. Mark my words, I haven't been wrong about my predictions, as you know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I was just thinking about the takeover games in the 80's, where some fuckwad would force the sale of a perfectly viable business and then chop it up for parts. That didn't help much either.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I was just thinking about the takeover games in the 80's, where some fuckwad would force the sale of a perfectly viable business and then chop it up for parts. That didn't help much either.

Then there was trickle down economics. Companies first, workers last.

Everyone forgot that workers also equal consumers...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Then there was trickle down economics. Companies first, workers last.

Everyone forgot that workers also equal consumers...

yep, so then we got Walmart.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

yep, so then we got Walmart.

I wonder what will happen to Wal Mart when the dollar collapses. They've based their whole business model on forcing vendors to offshore to China; all of that stuff will skyrocket in price.

Heck, a good collapse could become a natural tariff...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

We have met the enemy and he is us!--Pogo, Walt Kelly

Ever since WWII the US has been vehemently exporting democracy and capitalism and manufacturing know-how and you know what? We finally got what we wanted! A world full of burgeoning little USA's! Little economic dynamos cranking out the goods, competing like hell with us and eating our lunch, crowding us out at the trough. Now why are we so fucking surprised? Isn't this what our entire foreign policy was designed to make happen? What the hell did we expect?

I used to wonder about this. Why the hell did we want to bring democracy to the Soviet Union, for god's sake? Why did we want to liberalize China? Fuck Chinese freedom! Look what they've accomplished with that oppressive government still in place! If they ever become a democracy, it's all over for the US and the EU. We should be leaning on the Chinese Communists to crack down on liberty, not loosen up!

The only things that stand between the US and total economic meltdown are the Chinese Communist party, the Russian Mafias, the Indian caste system, Latin American poverty, and Mexican Drug Violence. Without those, those countries' economies would soar, and we'd be selling pencils outside the UN.

 

[mikey2much]

It’s that giant sucking sound

Remember when Ross Perot was telling us about that giant sucking sound? He said that it was the jobs going south of the to Mexico. But then China became an even cheaper labor source. Either way it was the rich corporations selling out the American worker.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

If China became a Democracy

which it never will

their people would push for reforms... reforms which would make it far more expensive for corporations to do business in China.


They would then lose their jobs to Eastern Europe or Africa, which are now emerging targets for offshoring.

By then, America will be a third world nation and when Africa rises, they'll offshore right back to us.

 

[Pure]

thoughts

jac, i think your heart's in the right place: US workers are getting screwed. i'm not sure, however, that a protective tariff system would have solved [or would solve] the problem.

there is a kind of "law" about the flow of capital. it goes towards 'areas' [not just geographic] of profitability.

i've often thought that a new entity is developing, Chi-Mex-America. the demand for cheap labor dictates it; hence there is no "solving the problem" of illegal immigration. it is lifeblood, as is the influx of cheap consumer goods.

look at it this way: paychecks are stagnant. you're saying 'make sure Walmart has to increase its prices by 30%'. that's quite a squeeze--one that creates instability.

in short, the plan "put tariffs on Chinese goods" has an air of a "finger in the dike" approach.
==

i think you're right about the 'democracy' prospects for China: somewhat more disturbing, as it's close to home: to what degree will the US gov't become authoritarian and repressive.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

jac, i think your heart's in the right place: US workers are getting screwed. i'm not sure, however, that a protective tariff system would have solved [or would solve] the problem.

there is a kind of "law" about the flow of capital. it goes towards 'areas' [not just geographic] of profitability.

i've often thought that a new entity is developing, Chi-Mex-America. the demand for cheap labor dictates it; hence there is no "solving the problem" of illegal immigration. it is lifeblood, as is the influx of cheap consumer goods.

look at it this way: paychecks are stagnant. you're saying 'make sure Walmart has to increase its prices by 30%'. that's quite a squeeze--one that creates instability.

in short, the plan "put tariffs on Chinese goods" has an air of a "finger in the dike" approach.
==

i think you're right about the 'democracy' prospects for China: somewhat more disturbing, as it's close to home: to what degree will the US gov't become authoritarian and repressive.

Paychecks are stagnant because we have a permanent employer's market. Bringing back 2.7 million manufacturing jobs goes a long way toward creating an employee's market where the pressure on wages is upwards, not downwards.

Also, when you slap a blanket tariff on low wage countries with no democracy, poor pollution laws and pathetic workplace safety laws, you pretty much create an iron box where capital literally cannot escape. The key is to make it impossible to sell to the American market, or even the entire WESTERN market, unless you play Western society rules.

Capital that wants to circumvent this can move to China and sell to the Chinese; they can be replaced here in the West.

 

[JackLuis]

If China became a Democracy

-

They would loose the strong central control necessary to hold on to all their territories. Considering that China has more minorities than not, fragmentation would be inevitable and how many H-bombs would be loose on the world market?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

They would loose the strong central control necessary to hold on to all their territories. Considering that China has more minorities than not, fragmentation would be inevitable and how many H-bombs would be loose on the world market?

They said that about the USSR. Ex-Soviet scientists lost their jobs and were starving until other countries started courting them. Yet we haven't heard of even one Russian nuke falling into the wrong hands... conspiracy website reports notwithstanding.

What would make the break-up of the Soviet Union less of a nuke proliferation threat than the democratization of China?

 

[Dragonlipz]

Great responses from everyone here and many good observations. It's interesting that we find ourselves in a situation much like our great-grandparents: fighting the vested corporate interests for basic rights and a living wage......
But?!!! We in this country bought into and voted into office pinheads who savaged the middle class with deregulation and prejudice, sold out to the banks and uber-corporations whothen bought nearly all of our politicians....We can change but to do that we must change.....

 

[dr_mabeuse]

If I may be allowed a Trysail moment?

This is from Wikipedia, but it's a very nice summation: (all my emphasis)

====================


In economics, BRIC (typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries") is an acronym that refers to the fast-growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001.[1][2] According to a paper published in 2005, Mexico and South Korea are the only other countries comparable to the BRICs, but their economies were excluded initially because they were considered already more developed[3]. Goldman Sachs argued that, since they are developing rapidly, by 2050 the combined economies of the BRICs could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. The four countries, combined, currently account for more than a quarter of the world's land area and more than 40% of the world's population.[4][5]

Goldman Sachs did not argue that the BRICs would organize themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, as the European Union has done.[6] However, there are strong indications that the "four BRIC countries have been seeking to form a 'political club' or 'alliance'", and thereby converting "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout".[7][8] On June 16, 2009, the leaders of the BRIC countries held their first summit in Yekaterinburg, and issued a declaration calling for the establishment of a multipolar world order.[9]

Goldman Sachs argues that the economic potential of Brazil, Russia, India, and China is such that they could become among the four most dominant economies by the year 2050. The thesis was proposed by Jim O'Neill, global economist at Goldman Sachs.[10] These countries encompass over 25% of the world's land coverage and 40% of the world's population and hold a combined GDP (PPP) of 15.435 trillion dollars. On almost every scale, they would be the largest entity on the global stage. These four countries are among the biggest and fastest growing emerging markets.[citation needed]

However, it is not the intent of Goldman Sachs to argue that these four countries are a political alliance (such as the European Union) or any formal trading association, like ASEAN. Nevertheless, they have taken steps to increase their political cooperation, mainly as a way of influencing the United States position on major trade accords, or, through the implicit threat of political cooperation, as a way of extracting political concessions from the United States, such as the proposed nuclear cooperation with India.[citation needed]

Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050 Moscow, Russia.

The BRIC thesis[11] (defended in the paper Dreaming with BRICs: The Path to 2050) recognizes that Brazil, Russia, India and China[12] have changed their political systems to embrace global capitalism. Goldman Sachs predicts China and India, respectively, to be the dominant global suppliers of manufactured goods and services while Brazil and Russia would become similarly dominant as suppliers of raw materials. Cooperation is thus hypothesized to be a logical next step among the BRICs because Brazil and Russia together form the logical commodity suppliers to India and China. Thus, the BRICs have the potential to form a powerful economic bloc to the exclusion of the modern-day states currently of "Group of Eight" status. Brazil is dominant in soy and iron ore while Russia has enormous supplies of oil and natural gas. Goldman Sachs' thesis thus documents how commodities, work, technology, and companies have diffused outward from the United States across the world.

Following the end of the Cold War or even before, the governments comprising BRIC all initiated economic or political reforms to allow their countries to enter the world economy. In order to compete, these countries have simultaneously stressed education, foreign investment, domestic consumption, and domestic entrepreneurship. According to the study, India has the potential to grow the fastest among the four BRIC countries over the next 30 to 50 years. A major reason for this is that the decline in working age population will happen later for India and Brazil than for Russia and China.[citation needed]

[See? That's what I'm talking about. As long as we these countries were communist, or engaged in a struggle against communism, they had neither the energy nor the resources to compete with us economically. Now they do, and they are.]
[edit]

(2004) Follow-up report Mumbai, India.

The Goldman Sachs global economics team released a follow-up report to its initial BRIC study in 2004.[13] The report states that in BRIC nations, the number of people with an annual income over a threshold of $3,000, will double in number within three years and reach 800 million people within a decade. This predicts a massive rise in the size of the middle class in these nations. In 2025, it is calculated that the number of people in BRIC nations earning over $15,000 may reach over 200 million. This indicates that a huge pickup in demand will not be restricted to basic goods but impact higher-priced goods as well. According to the report, first China and then a decade later India will begin to dominate the world economy.

Yet despite the balance of growth, swinging so decisively towards the BRIC economies, the average wealth level of individuals in the more advanced economies will continue to far outstrip the BRIC economy average. Goldman Sachs estimates that by 2025 the income per capita in the six most populous EU countries will exceed $35,000, whereas only about 500 million people in the BRIC economies will have similar income levels.

The report also highlights India's great inefficiency in energy use and mentions the dramatic under-representation of these economies in the global capital markets. The report also emphasizes the enormous populations that exist within the BRIC nations, which makes it relatively easy for their aggregate wealth to eclipse the G6, while per-capita income levels remain far below the norm of today's industrialized countries. This phenomenon, too, will affect world markets as multinational corporations will attempt to take advantage of the enormous potential markets in the BRICs by producing, for example, far cheaper automobiles and other manufactured goods affordable to the consumers within the BRICs in lieu of the luxury models that currently bring the most income to automobile manufacturers. India and China have already started making their presence felt in the service and manufacturing sector respectively in the global arena. Developed economies of the world have already taken serious note of this fact.

A Goldman Sachs paper published later in December 2005 explained why Mexico and South Korea were not included in the original BRICs. According to the paper,[3] among the other countries they looked at, only Mexico and South Korea have the potential to rival the BRICs, but they are economies that they decided to exclude initially because they looked at them as already more developed.
[edit]

(2007) Second Follow-up report Shanghai, China.

This report compiled by lead authors Tushar Poddar and Eva Yi gives insight into "India's Rising Growth Potential". It reveals updated projection figures attributed to the rising growth trends in India over the last four years. Goldman Sachs assert that "India's influence on the world economy will be bigger and quicker than implied in our previously published BRICs research". They noted significant areas of research and development, and expansion that is happening in the country, which will lead to the prosperity of the growing middle-class.[14]

"India has 10 of the 30 fastest-growing urban areas in the world and, based on current trends, we estimate a massive 700 million people will move to cities by 2050. This will have significant implications for demand for urban infrastructure, real estate, and services."[15]

In the revised 2007 figures, based on increased and sustaining growth, more inflows into foreign direct investment, Goldman Sachs predicts that "from 2007 to 2020, India's GDP per capita in US$ terms will quadruple", and that the Indian economy will surpass the United States (in US$) by 2050.[16] It states that the four nations as a group will overtake the G7 in 2032.[17]
========================

For a bunch of tables and other economic-style wank material, see the article.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

If I may be allowed a Trysail moment?

This is from Wikipedia, but it's a very nice summation: (all my emphasis)

And to think they will get to that level of wealth by taking our jobs...

 

[JackLuis]

They said that about the USSR. Ex-Soviet scientists lost their jobs and were starving until other countries started courting them. Yet we haven't heard of even one Russian nuke falling into the wrong hands... conspiracy website reports notwithstanding.

What would make the break-up of the Soviet Union less of a nuke proliferation threat than the democratization of China?

The cultural diversity, the sheer numbers of their population and, this is the big one, just how the Communist party fragments.

But to get back on your topic. Tariffs and Counter-tariffs distort the flow of goods, hopefully protecting the domestic industries from low cost labor.

The problem is that the CEO's of American industry are sold on the idea that to get their bonuses they have to squeeze every nickle out of the market. CEO's are driven by their bonus package.

The US economy was fucked up back in the 80's when the Chinese/Koren/Indian economies began to improve scientifically. By the 90's they had caught up with us and then George spent all our money on WAR.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

The cultural diversity, the sheer numbers of their population and, this is the big one, just how the Communist party fragments.

They would fragment more than the USSR and its bajillion now-breakway republics? Sorry, I'm just a country bumpkin, all full'a questions.

But to get back on your topic. Tariffs and Counter-tariffs distort the flow of goods, hopefully protecting the domestic industries from low cost labor.

The problem is that the CEO's of American industry are sold on the idea that to get their bonuses they have to squeeze every nickle out of the market. CEO's are driven by their bonus package.

But how can they keep sending jobs overseas if it costs more to produce those goods in China or India than it does to produce it here? They can't pay less than minimum wage in America, either.

And if China counter-tariffs us, that's just stupid. We export so little to them compared to what we import. They stand to lose there.

The US economy was fucked up back in the 80's when the Chinese/Koren/Indian economies began to improve scientifically. By the 90's they had caught up with us and then George spent all our money on WAR.

Republicans invest in the world; liberals invest in their own country. Now who's the patriot here?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BLACK JACK?

The problem aint the Chinese; the Chinks make dildos and plastic soap dishes. Le problem is American corporations that move to China and take the technical jobs with them. Like Hewlett Packard and Microsoft and all the others.

So they make a computer for 25 cents in China and sell it to their affiliate in the Caymans for oh! $495, then the Cayman guys sell it to HP California for $499.75...with me so far? And HP California pays tax on $4.50. Plus it paid no unemployment or social security or health benefits.

The enemy is us.

 

[ishtat]

They would fragment more than the USSR and its bajillion now-breakway republics? Sorry, I'm just a country bumpkin, all full'a questions.

China has existed continuously as a nation state since 2200BC with the formation of the Xia dynasty which adds up to 4200 years.

As someone who is a citizen of the United States which has existed less than 6% as long as the Chinese don't you think that your "bajillion breakaways" is merely xenophobic wishful thinking?

The Russian state is not a legitimate comparasion. Most of it was only added in the 17th and 18th century - not entirely unlike the USA.

 

[JackLuis]

China has existed continuously as a nation state since 2200BC with the formation of the Xia dynasty which adds up to 4200 years.

As someone who is a citizen of the United States which has existed less than 6% as long as the Chinese don't you think that your "bajillion breakaways" is merely xenophobic wishful thinking?

The Russian state is not a legitimate comparasion. Most of it was only added in the 17th and 18th century - not entirely unlike the USA.

The Qing Dynasty 1644-1911 disintegrated under the pressure of the "Colonial Powers" and broke up into War Lord segments. The Kuomintang and the Communists tussled a while until the REDs won.

If China gets all democratic, local issues will predominate and once again the "War Lord" class will pick up the pieces. Different war lords, to be sure, but still.

 

[ishtat]

The Qing Dynasty 1644-1911 disintegrated under the pressure of the "Colonial Powers" and broke up into War Lord segments. The Kuomintang and the Communists tussled a while until the REDs won.

If China gets all democratic, local issues will predominate and once again the "War Lord" class will pick up the pieces. Different war lords, to be sure, but still.

But the point is that the Emperors, the War Lords, the Republic of Sun Yat Sen and the Communist Party all had as their number 1 priority the preservation of the Chinese state.

"If China gets all democratic" Why should it ? The basic Chinese philosophy is Confucian whether under Emperors or the Party. Confucian societies have always valued authoritarian stability above democracy.

The riots in Tibet recently for example were not Tibetans rioting for democracy, they started as Han Chinese rioted because the provincial governor wouldn't impose order.

We stuffed up when someone assumed that Iraquis and Afghans wanted democracy. We shouldn't assume the Chinese want it either.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

But the point is that the Emperors, the War Lords, the Republic of Sun Yat Sen and the Communist Party all had as their number 1 priority the preservation of the Chinese state.

"If China gets all democratic" Why should it ? The basic Chinese philosophy is Confucian whether under Emperors or the Party. Confucian societies have always valued authoritarian stability above democracy.

The riots in Tibet recently for example were not Tibetans rioting for democracy, they started as Han Chinese rioted because the provincial governor wouldn't impose order.

We stuffed up when someone assumed that Iraquis and Afghans wanted democracy. We shouldn't assume the Chinese want it either.

Yes, thank you. I was trying to put my finger on the cultural difference between the Chinese and WASP Democracies, and I was leaning toward saying that it was the stronger Chinese allegiance to family and clan, but you're right. It's the Confucian ethic of a social order that works vertically rather than horizontally. Democracy is simply out of place in a Confucian society.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

China has existed continuously as a nation state since 2200BC with the formation of the Xia dynasty which adds up to 4200 years.

As someone who is a citizen of the United States which has existed less than 6% as long as the Chinese don't you think that your "bajillion breakaways" is merely xenophobic wishful thinking?

The Russian state is not a legitimate comparasion. Most of it was only added in the 17th and 18th century - not entirely unlike the USA.

Actually what I was saying is, how could China possibly break up into all those republics?

The only thing I wish for is for all trade with China to stop. I don't ask them to change - they never will.

BLACK JACK?

The problem aint the Chinese; the Chinks make dildos and plastic soap dishes. Le problem is American corporations that move to China and take the technical jobs with them. Like Hewlett Packard and Microsoft and all the others.

So they make a computer for 25 cents in China and sell it to their affiliate in the Caymans for oh! $495, then the Cayman guys sell it to HP California for $499.75...with me so far? And HP California pays tax on $4.50. Plus it paid no unemployment or social security or health benefits.

The enemy is us.

The problem is globalism. Jobs can move worldwide, but people cannot.

If we tariff these bastards they won't be able to run. We box them in. Force them to pay a murderously high tax on producing goods outside of the Western world. And an extra tax for doing shit in the Cayman Islands.

Give them nowhere to run for cheap labor, that's the way to go.

Yes, thank you. I was trying to put my finger on the cultural difference between the Chinese and WASP Democracies, and I was leaning toward saying that it was the stronger Chinese allegiance to family and clan, but you're right. It's the Confucian ethic of a social order that works vertically rather than horizontally. Democracy is simply out of place in a Confucian society.

This goes with what I had been telling Handprints and a number of others here, many times over: it is impossible for China to become a Democracy. Central authority is in everything but their genes.

If necessary I'd be glad to look up and bump my comments on that...

 

[newinmke]

Only if they hadn't invented container shipping

I heard once that container shipping brought down shipping costs so much that it was cheaper to get things manufactured overseas. Think about it - China and the rest of the world always had cheap labor, so why the disparity now?

Also, in a way this is poetic justice on colonial rule - British took all the textile mills from the east, and produced clothes cheaper, thanks to the industrial revolution. Guess what happens after 200 years...

Not to say what's happening now is right, but economics is always right - whether you like it or not. People will always buy at walmart for cheaper prices, although by doing so you are encouraging them now to allow unions.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I heard once that container shipping brought down shipping costs so much that it was cheaper to get things manufactured overseas. Think about it - China and the rest of the world always had cheap labor, so why the disparity now?

Also, in a way this is poetic justice on colonial rule - British took all the textile mills from the east, and produced clothes cheaper, thanks to the industrial revolution. Guess what happens after 200 years...

Not to say what's happening now is right, but economics is always right - whether you like it or not. People will always buy at walmart for cheaper prices, although by doing so you are encouraging them now to allow unions.

Who says economics is always right? I call bullshit on that.

Whatever produces living wage jobs is right. That is the key to survival.