Categorized | Trade

US Chamber and WSJ don’t think Made In America matters

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on RedditDigg thisShare on StumbleUponBuffer this pagePin on PinterestShare on TumblrEmail this to someone

The Wall Street Journal pooh-poohs the issue of U.S. Olympic athletes wearing Ralph Loren uniforms made in China.  In a long article called “Does It Matter China Made the U.S. Olympic Uniforms?”, the US Chamber chimes in

“Across the business community there’s a recognition that we need to talk about trade in a more sophisticated way—that global value chains can’t be boiled down to three words: ‘Made in China’ or ‘Made in America,'” says John Murphy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

That’s the attitude that got us into this mess, and prevents us from getting out.  The Chinese interest is gaining more and more of the value chain in many industries.  They’re doing it and are not shy about it.

The U.S. interest is in maintaining and building more and more of the value chain in many industries here.  To employ people and build wealth.  We are not doing it, and suffer the consequences.  The WSJ and US Chamber are part of the problem.

22 Responses to “US Chamber and WSJ don’t think Made In America matters”

  1. Hugh J. Campbell Jr. CPA says:

    The WSJ article concludes with a “Don’t Worry Be Happy” spin for the Multinationals, with:

    “Both countries will go back to trying to find elements over which they can cooperate. That’s been the pattern over the last 30 years.”

    However the following depicts the effects of the last 30 years for the 99ers:

    Multinationals’ Money Buys America’s Unresponsiveness to the Trade
    Deficit and the Non-Enforcement of our WTO Rights

    “It’s the economy, Stupid!” has been the recurring election year mantra since 1992. Unfortunately the economy is the consequence or result of some other root-causes. A root cause that gained traction 30 years ago was deregulation. It’s apparent with the benefit of hindsight that deregulation drove a wedge between capital and other domestic factors of production and contributed to the primacy of stockholders, especially those of Multinationals. The expectations held by of the vast major of U.S. Citizens about the fruits of deregulation have been violated in spades, but those of Multinationals have been realized BIG-TIME. Multinationals show no remorse, as they contend it was all earned legally, its legality is assured as long laws can be bought with political and lobbying contributions and Multinationals’ political ads designed to brain-wash voters.

  2. Hugh J. Campbell Jr. CPA says:

    The WSJ article concludes with a “Don’t Worry Be Happy” spin for the Multinationals, with:

    “Both countries will go back to trying to find elements over which they can cooperate. That’s been the pattern over the last 30 years.”

    However the following depicts the effects of the last 30 years for the 99ers:

    Multinationals’ Money Buys America’s Unresponsiveness to the Trade Deficit and the Non-Enforcement of our WTO Rights

    “It’s the economy, Stupid!” has been the recurring election year mantra since 1992. Unfortunately the economy is the consequence or result of some other root-causes. A root cause that gained traction 30 years ago was deregulation. It’s apparent with the benefit of hindsight that deregulation drove a wedge between capital and other domestic factors of production and contributed to the primacy of stockholders, especially those of Multinationals. The expectations held by of the vast major of U.S. Citizens about the fruits of deregulation have been violated in spades, but those of Multinationals have been realized BIG-TIME. Multinationals show no remorse, as they contend it was all earned legally, its legality is assured as long laws can be bought with political and lobbying contributions and Multinationals’ political ads designed to brain-wash voters.

  3. China Watcher says:

    Ralph Lauren decided to line his pocket, exploiting cheap hand labor in China. Then he crows about his patrioism in supplying the US Olympic team. This is not illegal, but it is greedy, stupid and unpatriotic. Consumers should use their market power and refuse to buy his stuff.

  4. Frank Shannon says:

    It may not matter except for jobs.

    What’s the root cause of America’s economic malaise…..NO JOBS!!!!

  5. Bob Hall says:

    Sure, the WSJ is openly globalist, but it’s still almost hard to believe Bussey built his argument on the San Francisco Fed’s “Made in China” report.

    Last August, TradeReform.org published my rebuttal of the Fed report as a Guest Column:

    http://www.tradereform.org/2011/08/guest-column-deceptive-made-in-china-statistics-from-the-federal-reserve

    You can read the full rebuttal here:

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/bob-hall-2012/the-made-in-china-content-of-the-federal-reserve-a-rebuttal-dttg-e-mail/248416948522568

    What a waste of time having to fight with knuckleheads at the WSJ, but they are anti-American and must be fought.

  6. William Ryan says:

    To Me the root cause of why there are no jobs is because there is no economy. There is no economy because it is a one way trade program and nobody with any power or authority cares…Around and around it goes,year after year of devastating job and opportunity losses…

    • Hugh J. Campbell Jr. CPA says:

      Deregulation tampered with the stable economic system that the U.S. once had. Deregulation, viewed as a silver-bullet by too many, has been permitted to progress far beyond its “sweet stop” of optimal utility. A balanced-trade model can achieve the creative restoration of a stable U.S. economic system. The Trans Pacific Pact TPP is the ultimate in deregulation and, in all likelihood, the United States’ “Economic Dooms-Day Cliff”.

      • Tom T. says:

        Deregulation has been the biggest Christmas present to the oligarchs who could care less about the public welfare. They only care about their welfare. We have a system where ex-Congressmen leave office to sell their contacts from public office to the highest bidder. They are some of the biggest anti public service forces out there. They are ready to work with the oligarch’s goals of enriching themselves at the public’s expense. Many years of this going on has given us the economy we have today.

        None of the common sense solutions are given much thought because of these entrenched forces. They have enriched themselves at the public’s expense and helped create and continue our economic decline.

        The self serving interests of the oligarchs is often shrouded in a story of public welfare– of which it is the opposite. Ralph Lauren is a prime example.

        We have very few people who will defend the public interest in our current political and legal system because we have had an enormous acquiescence by our political leaders to these forces. They are voted in to govern for the public but spend most of their time working for themselves and the uber rich so they can get reelected and have the ability to govern for the public good.

        In short, we have the best government money can buy.

        Tom T.

  7. Bob Goldschmidt says:

    We do not have a global government with a global central bank and one set of rules that everyone must play by under penalty of law. Therefore, in order to protect worldwide economic and political stability, each nation must protect themselves with at least 30% tariffs as was done during the middle class growth periods of the US and every other developed country (the only exception to this was after WWII, when most of the world’s industrial capacity had been destroyed).

    If we fail to take action the low-wage countries will knock the economic pins out from under the US and Europe. Then, finding their exports weakening, they too will succumb. We are not doing ourselves or our trading partners any favors by failing to raise tariffs.

  8. alexander says:

    Bob,very well said,I own a embroidery company that my father started in 1959,we are sitting with no work from the dress industry that now orders only from abroad.I have seen a whole textile industry go bankrupt after a century of servicing our domestic markets that our govn’t has now taken from us and gave it to the slave wage world to supply our markets with. It is tresion through trade agreements. This govn’t ,its greed is rampant,and this is the biggest problem to not being able to create a job market that is stable and secure.God help us in this country,they know what they are doing and don’t care.

    • Tom T. says:

      Alexander, it either boils down to incompetence or corruption. We have to get rid of the major policy makers who are captured by either or both.

      Tom T.

      • Joe Brooks says:

        Tom T. has the short version. We need Americans running America, not foreign lobbyists for every deregulated [read; Criminality is encouraged] slave labor nation on Earth.

  9. The Protectionist says:

    Ask the Chamber and WSJ what school of economics they subscribe too. I suspect the answer might be neoclassical economics (mainstream free trade). We are victims of one simple fact: There has never been a sound school of economics. Consider rescuingeconomics.wordpress.com for a possible solution to this dangerous intellectual gap.

  10. Joe Brooks says:

    Buddy Roemer and others testified before Congress/Senate today. This is two hours long and 20 years in the making. Please watch and comment. Even the Committee members refer to the Oligarchs repeatedly in this hearing.

    http://www.senate.gov/fplayers/jw57/commMP4Player.cfm?fn=judiciary072412P&st=875
    Committee HD Player

  11. Bob Hall says:

    WSJ, frightened and weak, cites a thoroughly discredited S.F. Fed “report.”

    See my TradeReform.org Guest Column:

    “Deceptive ‘Made in China’ Statistics from the Federal Reserve”

    http://www.tradereform.org/2011/08/guest-column-deceptive-made-in-china-statistics-from-the-federal-reserve

    or:

    “Wall Street Journal (Again) Shows Its True Colors; Running Low on White and Blue”

    http://www.facebook.com/notes/bob-hall-2012/wall-street-journal-again-shows-its-true-colors-running-low-on-white-and-blue/444048802292714

  12. Tom T. says:

    The problem is much deeper than the solutions that are offered. Senator Baucas went over an example of how one of the robber barons of the day bought a Senate seat for himself. The depth of the problem is shown in this example. The solutions offered are only nipping at the edges. The limitations offered are solely on political expenditures but does not offer any remedy for the abuse of power that comes from the economic might of some of the modern day robber barons.

    Walmart was used as an example in the hearings. It was suggested that Walmart had some $400,000,000.00 (that is 400 million) to influence the political races. This does not count Walmart’s strategy of using its wealth to frame the debate on our trade policies that appeals to consumers (lowest prices) but ultimately destroys the economy. It seems that the wealth gained by adjusting the debate and framing it on the second and third level are not even addressed. If voters only have a one sided debate on these issues that is offered by the likes of Walmart, and there is no balance in the dabate of the larger issue, how are they supposed to get close to holding their political representatives accountable for the policies they support?

    There is so much effort expended on these basic issues that the underlying problems are so far back on the list that they have little chance of being addressed. It assures that the oligarchs will continue to pull the puppet strings of policy for their own benefit even as on the whole, it is a deadweight loss to the economy. This is the benefit of framing the debate. The real issues are so far removed from the debate that they are not even addressed.

    I did like Buddy’s comments as he hit the nail on the head.

    The tax rate on the wealthy should be proportional to their ability to influence public policy in both direct and indirect contributions as well as their ability to frame the debate in the publicl. If this proportionality was instituted, we would have no problems with our deficit or SS system. We have somehow separatedd the benefits of wealth from their costs on society. This must be reconnected if our democracy is to be saved for the public good instead of being manipulated for the oligarchs who have the resources to game democracy and enough in our political class who have no qualms on selling themselves more readily than “ladies” on the corner as long as they can keep it hidden. Our not so “supremes” have just made it easier to hide their indescrestions.

    Tom T.

    • Joe Brooks says:

      Tom, thanks for taking the time to analyze this. I agree with your analysis. So did the Founders find a very similar situation. We have to start somewhere, just as they did. They started with combating free trade for the colonies and protectionism for the British Empire.

      I am shocked that Buddy and his crew made it this far. I noticed a very diverse group of politicians on the Committee, a very good sign. Originally C-SPAN was supposed to air this, but chickened out at the last minute.

      If we have to amend the Constitution to get our Commerce Department in order, so be it. That will be very tough with the Republican Governors Association Championing foreign investment and outsourcing, especially Red Chinese investment.

      Maybe Lessig’s solution would be more practical. Or, if we had “none of the above” on the ballot, with a provision that the election process would have to restart, in the case of no winner, we might get some Americans in front of the citizens of America.

      Trade sanity is the beginning of recovering what we have lost, it may be enough, I don’t know. It certainly will help and the Oligarchs know this. History repeats itself.

      • Tom T. says:

        I did get to watch the whole hearing, thanks to the library having a real internet connection (which is in itself another drag on the balance of information). Lessig was very impressive, the man from CATO not so much.

        With Lessig’s solution, one is more likely to get right at the problems (as long as it wasn’t rigged) instead of a political answer that starts out by being compromised based on the influence of money and power on the political power structure. Shame on C-Span for not putting this on the air.

        I think we do have some very bright people in Washington D.C. who want to do the right thing but there is an equal or greater number who succumb to the pull of money and power, continually using their power to give it more and more advantages over the average person.

        Again, the bill that was talked about the end of the program on disclosure should have been a no brainer. I think a cut off on campaign disclosure is not very hard as the CATO man would assert. One could take the median campaign contribution and anything over that would be disclosable. More disclosures need to be done on what lobbyists are at hearings and what amount of time they take from an elected official. Any corporation who gets more than the median amount of access should have to disclose this and the amount on their retail products if they have any and on their SEC filings. If it is private, then it should be traced directly back to the people who own the company. After all, corporations ARE PEOPLE, as Mitt Romney likes to say (well, maybe Mitt is correct when it comes to his corporations).

        While we are at the disclosure discussion, I don’t think it is too much to ask for any person or group who buys more than one copy of any of the supreme’s books to disclose this also. It might not look like a payoff to the Supreme Court Justices, but they are not immenently unqualified to be their own judge when it comes to the appearance of impropriety. This would include law firms and disclosure of ghost writers etc.

        We have some real problems in this country and instead of focusing on the real problems, we have to focus on distractions that are by and large paid for by those with money trying to influence the framing of the question for their own benefit. There will be few good results from this except to those buying the discussion.

        Tom T.

        • Tom T. says:

          For those too far removed to rember what “median” is for the disclosable amount, the Median is the “middle number” (in a sorted list of numbers). I for one would donate at least two cents to every congressional and presidential election to make the required reported number as low as possible. I would say a one cent donation but I have to leave room to compromise.

          Tom T.

  13. China Watcher says:

    Maybe it’s time for the rest of those NAM and Chamber members who feel betrayed by their leadership to vote with their feet. Why belong to an organization that consistently works against your best interests on trade-related issues? Both organizations will continue to do the other things that domestic producers value (in the area of litigation and regulations, for example). But it seems foolish to pay money to an organization that works against your interests even as it claims to represent you.

  14. David Albano says:

    Tell all of those out of work in this country,DOES IT MATTER CHINA MADE THE U.S. OLYMPIC UNIFORMS. Do that not get it that this puchase not ony gave work to the manufacture of the uniforms,it also gave work to the mills that produced the material, buttons, zipers and all the other industreis that support the uniform manufacture.

  15. Dan says:

    The Wall Street Journal has been out of touch with reality for years.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Friends Don’t Let Friends Buy Imports

Sign up to receive periodic updates

Frequency