How to Make Sure the Stimulus Stimulates Our Economy, Not China's

by: David Sirota

Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 11:00


President-elect Barack Obama and the incoming Congress seem poised to pass a massive economic rescue package filled with the public spending that progressives have been pushing for years. That's great news, and they are going to need all of our help passing the package over the inevitable obstruction efforts by conservatives.

But as the debate over the rescue package begins, I suggest you read Businessweek's cover story this week. It looks at "How much of Obama's mammoth fiscal stimulus will "leak" abroad, creating jobs in China, Germany, or Mexico rather than the U.S?" It's an important read, and a critical issue that explains why progressive trade policies must be part of a broader economic development strategy.  

David Sirota :: How to Make Sure the Stimulus Stimulates Our Economy, Not China's
The article implicitly smacks down the right-wing frame that says tax cuts to boost consumer spending is the best way to rescue our economy, noting that the right kind of public spending better ensures the money remains in our country:

What about spending on infrastructure, health-care modernization, and green technology? All these tend to produce less leakage overseas than consumer spending. But even jobs in these areas have a tendency to slip over the border unless carefully constrained. Spending on infrastructure such as rail transit is more likely to create domestic jobs, in part because it is already covered by federal legislation that mandates a certain level of purchases of U.S.-made goods.

For example, new public transit vehicles generally must have 60% domestic content and be assembled in the U.S. Electric streetcars-a mass transit option to cut pollution that's favored by cities such as Denver and Salt Lake City-would likely be imported from other countries if it weren't for the "Buy American" requirements attached to federal funding.

The "Buy American" laws have been around in federal procurement since the Great Depression, and they embody one of the founding principles of the broader trade policy reforms that progressives have been pushing for a while now: Namely, that when our government spends public dollars, we should do our best to make sure those dollars stay in our country.

The first problem is that many of our trade policies have subsequently pre-empted or weakened these key Buy American statutes (for instance, subjecting some of them to court challenges in international tribunals on the grounds that they violate "free trade" principles). The second and even bigger problem is epitomized in the article's note that "Paying someone to better insulate a home will clearly create a domestic job. But how much of the insulation will come from China, a major producer?" That's a good question, and it speaks to a trade policy that has decimated America's core manufacturing capacity.

Our own economic policies have created an incentive for corporations to eliminate manufacturing industries here at home and troll the world for the cheapest labor, worst human rights conditions and most lax environmental laws. Not surprisingly, that race to the bottom has crushed our manufacturing industries - ie. those that make stuff - and therefore it becomes harder and harder to make sure spending on said "stuff" like infrastructure projects stays here.

So, while fixing the NAFTA trade model and reforming the WTO may at first glance seem insignificant, it is anything but - it will be a decisive factor in making sure all of the efforts over the next many years to fix and sustain our economy aren't done in vain.

The good news is that in floating fair-trade advocate Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) for U.S. Trade Representative, the Obama team is suggesting it understands the significance of trade reforms in an overall economic strategy. The more troubling news is highlighted by the Wall Street Journal today, which notes that top experts who study job outsourcing have noted that "Almost every member of the economic advisory board who has worked in business has been involved in significant outsourcing actions." These observers are subsequently voicing "worry that [he] may de-emphasize his commitment to get business to stop sending jobs offshore."

The concerns are certainly valid - personnel always plays some role in policy. But as I wrote in a column a few weeks ago, emergency circumstances can radically change the thinking of even the most Establishment actors, and with Obama pledging to create 2.5 million jobs, he now has a political incentive to use every means at his disposal - including trade policy reform - to reach that promised goal.

The fact is, you can't have an effective industrial policy without a trade policy that supports it. Leveling the trade playing field with better labor/environmental standards, better trade enforcement, and an end to the provisions undermining Buy American laws will in the long run be a major factor determining whether American taxpayer dollars truly rescue our economy, or head overseas.


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Focusing on negative externalities (0.00 / 0)
Don't forget Obama's promise to end the tax cuts for going overseas.

I think that the way we should be going is realizing that a blanket tariff is the best way to keep the market undistorted.

We have a blanket equal tax for people being paid incomes and it is a good idea to have the same for overseas products.  Right now only having that tax on domestically produced goods creates a distorted market and a tax on foreign produced goods would equalize the field.

In addition to really equalize the field we would also need to institute real quality controls on such goods.  

Ending the massive subsidies and lack of quality control to foreign produced goods is what is needed to bring back buying American.

The argument for those subsidies is that we get a lot of cheap goods, but we shouldn't be subsidizing china to give us cheap goods.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....


Well said (0.00 / 0)
And we shouldn't be subsidizing corporations which violate  basic human rights, such as profitting off of child labor, exposing workers to outrageous levels of toxins, and disregarding any basic environmental standards---all moral issues that have been thrown under the bus in favor of big corporations' bottom line.  

[ Parent ]
there are many ways of fighting for human rights (4.00 / 1)
but how can you set demands and strategy without first talking to the humans whose rights you're trying to defend?t  wouldn't it work better and be fairer?  help  understand the situations on the ground?  secure not just predetermined rights set by others, but power for those directly affected as well?

otherwise, you just end up at another variation on domination.


[ Parent ]
Agree (0.00 / 0)
I agree with the points you make but continuing to finance the violation of workers' rights and empowering the abusers/oppressors will only perpetuate the problem.

The problem needs to be addressed both from the top down and bottom up.  


[ Parent ]
they're not mutually exclusive :) (0.00 / 0)
in fact dealing with the world as it is requires an integrated set of activitiese .  the strategy i gave is what someone looking at things from "the top down" can use as a yardstick to measure the things people say and advocate as top-down solutions (like environmental and labor standards in trade agreement pushed by forces in the rich world without consultation let alone a democratic process involving the people affected).  

in other words, whenever anyone talks about the develoing world - whether from the u.s., europe, or from india or china or from bangladesh or madagascar, to what extent are they talking about initiating processes that empower workers and/or people in the poor world and to what extent do they provide cover for other legitimate causes that are not related to those people or leave them (further) disempowered (whether by intent or through effect).  where is the intiative coming from and who stands to benefit most, and what kind of world will it promote?

there is a VERY false debate about "free trade" vs. "fair trade" that in the rich world is devoid of real communication wtiht he people most directly affected.


[ Parent ]
this is crap (2.67 / 3)
it's fine to say that the u.s. should promote economic  nationalism - it actually makes sense in a lot of ways given the state of the u.s. economy and that the poorer countries people are probably more harmed by the free trade ideology and so if the u.s. were to adopt economic nationalism, it would as a side effect produce a better climate for industrial policymaking for them.

however, posing this in terms of us vs. them,  on moral terms is absolute bullshit - it's hard for me to believe that you're advocating in the interests of dalits in india or pro-democracy advocates in thailand or in subsaharan africa when you pretend tthe allocation of resources in the world is both inherently unsustainable and is held up by violence and imperialism.  There simply is no moral reason that the U.S. and other rich countries SHOULD enjoy a higher standard of living than people in other poor countries - so just say that you disagree with that and let's be done with the ethical bullshit.

On the other hand, if you're interested in a moral argument, how about a transnational workers movement that looks to organizing against national governments and the corporations in order to secure the least violent processes of industrialization possible, to make sure that pro-worker and pro-peasant and pro-indigenous people ideologies matter in the world, and to allow americcan workers to see that they have a choice - they can ally themlseves with the people at the top in the united states and ask for better policies or they can see themselves as workers - workers with more power than those in many other countries - and be part of a workers movement.  and they can attempt to sensitively and with a consciousness of their own power leverage their resources for their own benefit and those of other workers - with voices as equal as possible for workers and others and poor people in the united states, in britain, in japan, in south korea, in china, in india, in madagascar, and everywhere else.

that choice has always been there, and it always will be - and different people will make different choices.  yours is not one that i like - to look to the american elite to save the american worker through the processes of "democracy" that have long since been gutted in this country and need to be rebuilt.


My bet is (0.00 / 0)
They don't see themselves as having a lower standard of living.  They see America as a place without the neighbors and familial connections that are important to living.

It is not our obligation to make the world just like us and to live the way we live.  At the end of the day in my opinion india is getting the better end of the deal by not rushing to become the factory of the world even if China's GDP is higher.

Plus fundamentally we should be becoming more nationalistic as currently we have a trade deficit.  Trade deficits are not good for us and they are not good for the rest of the world because they promote unsustainable environments.

Its wrong to say that we know best and that we should make the rest of the world like us.  

http://transgendermom.blogspot....


[ Parent ]
This is not about making the world like us (4.00 / 1)
We need to make sure that companies are outsourcing for the right reasons. We need to make sure that they are not abusing workers abroad because its cheaper then paying salaries here. Its not about whether they see themselves as having a lower standard of living or not - its about making sure all boats are lifted so that we are all on an even playing field. Its not about playing the poor in india off the poor in china in order to get some doohickeys for 4 cents off at walmart, its about helping all workers.

I agree with Dr. Anonymous - its time for an international workers movement that recognizes the reality of the modern economic situation. Marx never foresaw the proletariat allying with the elite of a developed country in order to exploit workers in another country, but you know he would have advocated for solidarity among workers, regardless of boundaries. I really think that only through that type of solidarity will we fight back against Corporate hegemony and race to the bottom tactics.

Though I am also hopeful about Becerra and implementing fair-trade policies here at home. I see no reason not to do both.


[ Parent ]
Try and put it another way (4.00 / 1)
What you're saying is of a piece with 19th century dogma used to justify slavery. Nobody wants to be a slave, or to work in a sweatshop, or to live on less than a dollar a day. They do it because they're forced to by compulsion or need.

That's not to say that you're condoning slavery. It's to say that we really shouldn't use the line of argument you just went in for.

Not everybody wants to be like the US. But nobody wants to be dirt poor and with no chance of their children doing better than them. Nobody wants all the tragedies that come with being near the bottom of the human development indices. And on the flip side, almost all the world's second-generation middle class wants to be a lot like the US.

There's avoiding cultural imperialism, then there's perpetuating a two-tier global economic system. I'd just ask you to think about the way you frame this issue, because whilst the former is perfectly laudable, I think you strayed over to the latter.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog


[ Parent ]
i think the problem is more with the way post framed the issue than this comment (4.00 / 1)
i agree with the spirit of where you're coming from, but this continued use of "saving the powerless" vs. not doing anything is part of what got us into the iraq war and a lot of other wars, as well as the friedmanesque defenses of the trade regime and it's total bullshit.  most rich countries and their people don't seem interested in reognizing that striving for a world without violence and warfare means a world in which we recognize the inequalities that exist and fight them in progressive ways- otherwise it's a pretty reactionary debate altogether.

just commenting in the spirit of carrying the conversation forward :)


[ Parent ]
apparently anti-imperialist critique gets you a troll rating now? (0.00 / 0)
maybe i'm doing something right.

[ Parent ]
I don't agree with everything you said here (4.00 / 3)
but you raise a few excellent questions, and you've sparked some good debate.

One thing you bring up that I like is the idea of class consciousness, and of workers' movements as inherently international.  This idea has been around since the 19th century, and it forms the core of Marx and Engels' vision of a proletarian rebellion against capitalism.

So how do we implement class consciousness among the world's workers today?  If Karl Marx were alive today, I think he'd probably see the vast majority of Americans and Western Europeans, even including industrial workers, as bourgeois, or at least petty bourgeois.  North America and Western Europe have become "service economies," and although there's still huge income disparity, and plenty of people falling through the cracks, the overall standard of living in these places is very high.  Where's the fabled industrial proletariat, then?  Lots of the world's poor, industrial workers are in China and India.  But they, as well as the world's non-industrial poor, largely aspire to a consumer-driven, American style of living: driving a car, eating meat every day, hoping to put their children through school so they can go on to live better lives.  Is this a failure of Marxism, a victory of American consumer culture?  Where does this leave us if we're hoping for an international workers' movement?  Are these Marxist categories even a valid way of looking at the world now?  I think they're useful for provoking discussion, but beyond that I really don't have any answers.

You might like reading Immanuel Wallerstein, who suggests that the world is about to go through a transition from its present economic order to new one, which might be more or less brutal than the capitalism of the past few centuries.  Take a look, for instance, at http://www.monthlyreview.org/m...


[ Parent ]
i love immanuel wallerstein :) (0.00 / 0)
i have a huge academic crush on him :)
i think marxism as carried forward after marx has its limits - severe limits - but if you look at it at the beginning of a series of questions and a way of considering the world, it has some extremely important insights.  Sometimes, you can read things that were written 80 years ago and feel like smacking yourself because it adequately refutes the horseshit we've been fed for the last 30 years.

this then, begs the question of why very very important and insightful thinking from the 1970s and early 1980s was demolished - which leads me again to consider that people like immanuel wallerstein are not unpopular because they're wrong, but because they offer important insights that are at odds with the contemporary political economy and the way it shapes academia.


[ Parent ]
Bank bailout money is already going abroad (4.00 / 1)
Bank of America is already using the recent bailout money to create jobs in China when the priority should be to first create jobs here. But of course, few stipulations were put on how our tax money would be used with this bailout.

I spoke with a local Red Hat employee the other day who is moving to Mumbai as RH is expanding their office over there simultaneously, many of our state's tech corps are asking our Governor for a bailout. (I don't know if RH is specifically part of that group but I assume so).

More regulations on how U.S. taxpayer bailout money is spent is certainly needed and a critical component of the forthcoming economic stimulus plan.


Renegotiate NAFTA? Ha! Help the autos? Ha! Ha! (4.00 / 2)
If Obama has to spend  $250 billion to create 2.5 million jobs, it is a bargain to spend $34 billion to keep 3 million jobs.  


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

Good trade policies are important (4.00 / 2)
But this leakage issue is not.

The whole world economy needs a Keynesian stimulus right now.  If some of the unemployed that get jobs are Chinese or Mexican, that's not at all a bad thing.  More to the point: you want the Chinese and Mexican governments to run economic stimulus programs, at least partly because some of the jobs they will create will be American.

I generally agree with David on trade; the current trade regime is rigged to enrich elites on both sides of a trading relationship at the expense of the majority of American and foreign workers.  And our "trade agreements" right now are more about extending the prerogatives of US corporations outside of US borders than they are about being "free" anything.  But this is all a separate issue from the need to generate additional aggregate demand here and elsewhere.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search