DEMAND IS KING: What Trump Has Right About Trade

July 2, 2018

Trump understands what establishment policymakers don’t know or don’t want you to know. When it comes to trade; nations rich with consumer demand hold the real leverage.

A broad-based middle-class prosperity is only possible in societies where demand is balanced with the supplied labor. In human history, this balance between demand and the labor supply is only being achieved in a few nations and for short spans of time. Despite our deep-seated belief, that America has always been and always will be a middle-class society. A broad-based middle-class has only existed in the US for the three Decades after World War II.

The notion of a broad-based middle-class prosperity is the exception, not the rule, and many Americans feel it slipping away Their concern is justified because nothing can throw the delicate balance between consumer demand and labor supply out of whack faster than international trade. The world is awash with potential labor yet there is a finite supply of consumer demand.

President Obama has said that income inequality is the biggest issue facing our nation. He is right.  Even as the reason he puts forward for the causes of income inequality are muddled and that he seems to accept the notion that income inequality is caused by global market forces beyond the control of policymakers. Free trade is not inevitable, it is a conscious policy decision that has a real impact on working families.

Obama’s insistence on pursuing the TPP trade deal in the run-up to the 2016 election speaks volumes about his misreading of the electorate and his misunderstanding of the fundamental causes of income inequality. Despite promises from candidate Obama, the Obama administration never intended to renegotiate NAFTA.

There is no light between Obama, Hillary Clinton, the House, and Senate leadership of the Democratic Party and establishment Republicans on trade.  This is one reason Hillary Clinton lost the election. The genius of Donald Trump in the 2016 election was his understanding that the sense of angst in the Midwest great lakes electorate was in large part about how the US, a developed prosperous nation can integrate its economy with a world awash with excess labor.

The answer is that you can not integrate the economies of a rich nation with an impoverished developing nation without massive transfers of wealth. Any free trade agreement between the US and, say, Vietnam will devolve into wage arbitrage. But it’s not only wages; Vietnam businesses have a host of price advantages. The US private sector supports all matter of government and private spending. The US military and health care spending alone put US producers at a huge disadvantage with developing-nation trading partners. Even a service as basic as indoor plumbing has a cost that is passed along in the products we produce, so the question becomes how do you compete with countries that don’t provide even the most basic private and governmental services?

The US and a few other countries have something that is absent in the developing world, it is the very reason why they are impoverished.  We have consumer demand. Successful Nations of the future will find ways to match demand with a population desperate for gainful employment even if that means siphoning off demand by being low-cost producers from consumer nations. The idea that the United States or any developed nation can allow huge chunks of consumer demand to be absorbed by developing nations and maintain a current level of their own prosperity is a con job. As powerful as the American consumer is, we can’t be the employer to the world – the numbers just don’t work. Free trade does not grow the world economy fast enough to maintain the value of labor.

Denying access to imports is not the answer. The real issue is not how much a nation trades, it is the balance of trade that determines the transfer of wealth. A trade policy without reciprocity will continue to drain our economy of its vitality.

“Free Traders” insist that trade deficits are not a problem. So how do you explain the rise of China? China’s double-digit growth rate, budget surplus even as it expands it’s government (military) spending. China’s go-go economy is a direct result of a positive balance of trade. Trade does grow the world economy but not enough to make up the transfer of wealth from the US into China.

Proponents of free trade put forward the figure that in 2015, 5,967 jobs were linked to every billion dollars of exports. But wouldn’t the inverse also be true? For every billion dollars worth of imports, a similar amount of US jobs are lost.  What’s critical in this discussion that “Free Traders” never address is what is the net effect of our trade policies on the maintenance of wages and jobs growth in the US? There’s also no discussion of the devastating effects on workers incomes when companies use the potential to offshore jobs as leverage in labor negotiations.

Is a lot of money to be made by sourcing goods in low-cost, weak currency nations and selling them into developed nations with a higher standard of living and stronger currencies?  But do not blame China, they do not have the power to dictate US trade policy. Despite the fear-mongering about trade wars and China owning our T-bills, we have a donor-class trade policy set up to benefit multinational corporations. All the elitist rhetoric you will hear as President Trump tries to address the imbalance the US/world trading is designed to maintain the status quo.

Countries that understand consumer demand and jobs is a feedback loop that creates prosperity will be successful in the 21st century. If the US allows it’s consumer demand to be drained off for the short term benefit of multinational corporations in unsustainable trading relationships we will struggle to maintain a middle class and fail to have a stronger private economy with the resource to support their own infrastructure and institutions.

Advertisements

Can the Democratic Party Come Back?

January 12, 2017

A tectonic shift in the political landscape is taking place and the Democrats are in danger of being left out in the cold.  Just as the civil rights movement in the 60’s completely rearranged and upended what it meant to be a Democrat and Republican, a new alignment is taking place over America’s place in the global economy and in global affairs.

The two victories by Barack Obama obscured a party that was dying on the vine.  We all (now) know the numbers.  The oval office, both houses of congress, governorships, state legislators; the Democratic Party is in full retreat.  It is a party so desperately clinging to the past and past leadership that we need to ask if this party can right itself before it becomes irrelevant and obsolete.

The Democratic Party is psychologically wounded, lashing out at everyone and everything that they feel is to blame for the horrible injustice that has befallen Hillary Clinton, denying America the benefit of her obvious superior leadership, it was Trump the demigod, the GOP, sexism, racism, the media, the electoral college, the Comey letter, the Russians, the list goes on and on.  All of this thrashing about on the ground in a pile of tear-filled rage is pointless and ultimately harmful. We look like fools and sore losers, most importantly it makes us incapable of seeing our own faults that has led to this debacle.

Democratic vs. Republican has been usurped by globalization vs. populism. This realignment is occurring in the US and around the world.  Globalization has been uncovered as a cruel hoax.  Free trade, the global banking system, capital-friendly tax systems and mass immigration are doing real harm to the middle class.  The system is designed to drive down the cost of labor while exacting profits that flow to the 1%.  It is a system that is of course, unsustainable but the donor class is not interested in introspection on the society that is being created, or should we say being destroyed, and neither it seems is the leadership of the Democratic Party.

It is a bigger and much more dangerous mortgage lending crisis being played out over the course of decades.  When Bill Clinton took up the cause of NAFTA as a way to raise money for his presidential bid, the Democratic Party bought into free trade hook, line, and sinker.  Globalization became the defining economic policy of both parties right through to today.

Barack Obama missed this realignment, continued pressing forward with trade deals and wars when the voters were begging for relief.  This is the problem when you take your cues from the donor class whose interests are not in line with the voters.  The undercurrent of populism has been building for a long time but the donor class and the media manage to keep it from the light of day.  By playing to a system where it is verboten by the donor class to offer any alternative to globalization, the Democratic Party became a tool of the 1%.  Corporate Democrats may be more right on social issues but are really no different from corporate Republicans on the fundamental operating principles of our economy.

Obama/Clinton made no effort to address the concerns of the middle class.  They talked about the income inequality but refused to define a cause because that would have led to the only real conclusion; globalization is exactly the wrong policy to build broad-based middle-class prosperity in a developed nation.

The rise of Bernie and Trump was a direct result of the fact that they were operating outside the normal system of campaign finance and were free to tap the populist mood that lay dormant and unaddressed, the sleeping Giant of American policies.  The Democratic establishment just did a better job killing off the candidate of real change.  Whether Bernie could have won is missing the point, Bernie was the only Democratic alternative that broke through the donor class blockade. The Democrats are just as responsible, if not more responsible, for the Trump Presidency because we turned our back on the working families of America.

Democrats if you want to know why we lost it’s time to stop crying, passing the blame and look in the mirror.  Hillary lost because she was a product of the corporate establishment elitist globalist party system and Trump was not!!

The Democratic Party faces an existential crisis, can we break free from the clutches of the globalist donor class and if so where do we get the money to rebuild?  If the Democratic Party cannot come to terms with its failed and rejected policies and make real change in its’ policies and leadership, (and so far it seems wholly unwilling to do either), it is in danger of being a non-entity in American politics.  Without real substantive charge in the Democratic Party, the battle for power in American politics will be waged between the globalists and populists of the Republican Party.

 


The Immigration Reform American Workers Deserve

February 23, 2016

Democrats have wholeheartedly taken up the issue of income inequality and stagnant real wages of working class families.  Bernie Sanders has criticized our current trade policy; making it a centerpiece of his campaign. He does not support the purposed TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade agreement.

Here in Ohio, Sen. Sherrod Brown has been a longtime opponent of “free trade”.  Former Gov. Ted Strickland, who has a good chance of unsetting Sen. Rob Portland (r) in the upcoming election, is also campaigning against trade deals that put Ohio workers in direct competition with cheap foreign labor and sends Ohio jobs overseas.

What does it matter if we send American jobs overseas for foreign labor to fill or we bring foreign labor into the U.S.?  This is the disconnect of progressive economic labor policy.

In the relatively recent past, prominent liberals agreed that rapidly expanding the labor pool by bringing in millions of immigrants was not in the best interests of working Americans. Labor union leaders and civil rights luminaries, for a century right through President Bill Clinton, supported reducing the number of work permits for foreign laborers. They understood that such a move would spur wage growth and expand job opportunities for Americans.

A 1995 congressional commission, chaired by the charismatic civil rights leader and Democratic Texas congresswoman Barbara Jordan, recommended limiting immigration to 550,000 individuals a year. President Clinton praised the recommendation as a “balanced immigration policy that . . . protect[s] the American work force.”

There is no good reason to continue giving out one million new lifetime work permits every year, supporting guest worker programs and having a permissive attitude towards illegal immigration when over 15 million native and immigrant Americans already here are currently unable to find full-time jobs.

From 1924 to 1965, America sharply scaled back the number of immigrants it accepted. Without competition from a large pool of foreign-born laborers, American workers were better able to unionize and demand improved wages and benefits.

The share of income going to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans dropped from 43 percent in 1924 — the year lower immigration quotas were implemented — to less than 32 percent in 1965 — the year the quotas were replaced with the current immigration system.

The post-1965 influx of workers helped freeze wages. In fact, inflation-adjusted wages have actually declined over the last forty years. The average worker in 1973 earned a higher real wage than the average worker does today.

Economists have concluded that high levels of immigration are partially responsible for wage stagnation. Harvard professor George Borjas, an immigrant himself, has shown that expanding the size of any working cohort — as defined by age or education — by 10 percent through immigration reduces the wages of all native-born folks in that group by 2.5 percent. The effect on native-born men is even greater — a decline in wages of 3.7 percent.

For Americans without a high school degree, the wage losses are even more pronounced — about $1,200 for the years between 1990 and 2010.

Immigrants themselves are not at fault. The overwhelming majority of immigrants are industrious people who work hard. It is just that in America, hard work often is not rewarded.  The strongest work ethic in the world cannot defeat the law of supply and demand. The more workers who need a job, the less employers have to pay to attract employees.

Our leaders have the power to stop this economic race to the bottom and boost wage growth. Scaling back the pace at which our nation admits new laborers from abroad would help disadvantaged immigrants who are already here. It would take job-market realities into account and give native and immigrant American workers the leverage to win back the wages and benefits they’ve lost over decades.

America has been and must continue to be a nation that does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, but there’s no need to bring in one million permanent immigrants every year, allow guest worker programs, on top of illegal immigration when current residents cannot find good-paying jobs.

If progressive candidates are serious about standing up for American workers, they must consider greatly reducing the number of foreign laborers who have access to the American labor market through trade policy and immigration policy.


It is the Labor Market Stupid

January 5, 2014

Why Democrats will not address the real cause of income inequality.

I am hopeful that the public and our political class are coming to terms with income inequality in America and the harm it is doing to our economy and society.  At the same time, I am disappointed in the response by my party, the Democratic Party, to the overreaching economic issues of our time.

While raising the minimum wage would do more good than harm, simply raising the minimum wage would help too few people, too little, and could create inequities of its own.  More importantly, the minimum wage is a placebo, a distraction from the real labor market forces at work that is bringing the idea of America as a broad-based middle class national, to a close.

Our government over the last 30 years has pursued policies by way of trade agreements, cheap foreign labor embedded in the goods imported to the US and an immigration policy of non-enforcement to increase the supply of labor in the United States.  Globalization has been an abject failure for the American middle class.  When President Clinton supported NAFTA he sold out to a corporate establishment and took the Democratic Party’s labor market policy 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Increasing the supply of labor into the US market has had a predictable, and for some, the desired result.  While corporate profits are at record highs the value of labor in the market has been diminished to the point where a full-time job no longer provides a place in the middle class.

For a party that holds the moral high ground on so many important issues, it sickens me to see Democrats pandering to foreign nationals who have intentionally broken our immigration law in order to gain an electoral advantage, and to a corporate establishment that is willing to put short-term profits above the economic interest of their employees and their own customers.

It is my wish that the Democratic Party will set aside the interest of foreign nationals and big campaign contributors and return to their core values of supporting a strong and prosperous middle-class.

Please like the Facebook Page: Democrats Against Amnesty   https://www.facebook.com/pages/Democrats-Against-Amnesty/152334804799707?ref=br_tf


%d bloggers like this: