Bill Clinton promotes outsourcing of US jobs to Haiti

[jackschmittusa]

Though it may be, please show proof that it amounts to outsourcing. If they make products for low income people in S. America for example, the products may not be able to be made in the U.S. because of production costs, shipping costs, availability and cost of raw materials, etc.. In such a case, the products may not even exist without their current location, which would mean no net effect on U.S. job totals.

I don't know and I doubt anyone screaming about it knows either.

I'll reserve judgment until I see enough facts to make an intelligent assessment.

 

[cwjerome]

The Neo-Isolationists should probably start figuring out how we can adapt and adjust to the inevitable reality of globalization. Instead of pitching hissy fits, cuz there's no going back.

 

[feralkid]

^^hey, CW, are you in Jerome, AZ?

 

[cwjerome]

^^hey, CW, are you in Jerome, AZ?

Nope, but I like the place

 

[KMFJD]

What an asshole for helping people in an impoverished country

 

[Joepublic2]

The Neo-Isolationists should probably start figuring out how we can adapt and adjust to the inevitable reality of globalization. Instead of pitching hissy fits, cuz there's no going back.

It's entirely possible to go back with sufficient political will, and more and more Americans are realizing it's the only way they and their children are going to get a fair shake in society. The only people that say there's no way to go back are those who have a vested interest in not going back. And I'm not saying we should stop trading with other nations, we should but do it in a way that puts our national interests before the interests of other countries/multinationals. And there's really no reason to be so invested in other countries period with regards to their political and military climate.

 

[cwjerome]

It's entirely possible to go back with sufficient political will, and more and more Americans are realizing it's the only way they and their children are going to get a fair shake in society. The only people that say there's no way to go back are those who have a vested interest in not going back. And I'm not saying we should stop trading with other nations, we should but do it in a way that puts our national interests before the interests of other countries/multinationals. And there's really no reason to be so invested in other countries period with regards to their political and military climate.

There is no going back, it's a force beyond any nation's control. It's the same exact thing that's happened for hundreds of years, only then it was regional and slow. Now it's global and fast.

And globalization didn't start with NAFTA. It started in 1945 and every year after that, when the USA went out to countries around the world and lectured them on liberalized markets, monetary policy, and to free up their politics. It got a renewed sense of urgency when the USSR failed and the debate over central planning evaporated. Markets and trade lift whole nations into modernity and their people out of poverty.

We globalized the world, and now the rest of the developing world is catching up and accelerating it. We globalized the world but now don't want to globalize our self? Did we expect anything different?

So no, we can not go back and ask for a redo. Now a company headquartered in Phoenix Arizona can make products in China with materials from Indonesia and customer support in India with accounting done in South Africa and sell it to people in Europe. That's just the way it is.

Imposing restrictive trade barriers will only hurt us while the rest of the world passes us by. So the question is, can we accommodate the changes? Yes we can, but it doesn't involved becoming an island unto ourselves.

 

[Joepublic2]

There is no going back, it's a force beyond any nation's control. It's the same exact thing that's happened for hundreds of years, only then it was regional and slow. Now it's global and fast.

Economies had time to adapt when it was regional and slow, as opposed to today.

And globalization didn't start with NAFTA. It started in 1945 and every year after that, when the USA went out to countries around the world and lectured them on liberalized markets, monetary policy, and to free up their politics. It got a renewed sense of urgency when the USSR failed and the debate over central planning evaporated. Markets and trade lift whole nations into modernity and their people out of poverty.

The US did this because it sought to open huge new export markets; we were the only fully industrialized country standing after WWII and wisely sought to take advantage of the situation by preaching the virtues of "free" trade, although in hindsight this short term gain was not worth the long term effects as we're seeing today.

And I would argue it depends highly on the type of trade you're talking about. One of the reasons Haiti is so poor in the first place is due to globalization; their farmers can't compete with US farmers on price due to the economies of scale, industrialization, and the fact that agricultural products in the US have heavily distorted final market prices due to farm subsidies. This creates two problems; it weakens the internal market for Haiti's own farm products because US foodstuffs can be imported much more cheaply than buying local foodstuffs and it causes Haiti's main potential export to the world, food, to be completely uncompetitive in the international export market. This happens to poor countries all over the world; their best avenues to accrue the wealth required to industrialize and rapidly start raising their standard of living is blocked by more established international players.

We globalized the world, and now the rest of the developing world is catching up and accelerating it. We globalized the world but now don't want to globalize our self? Did we expect anything different?

Globalization is a different side of the same coin of "trickle-down" economics; it's a race to the bottom with those with the cash to exploit the system being the only ones to benefit. "Free" trade is anything but free because most prosperous nations DON'T have liberalized markets when it competes with their domestic markets. The powers that be that control the US have absolutely no interest in protecting our own domestic industries in a similar fashion as evidenced by the rust belt, the decaying manufacturing core of our country that resulted from unfair, lopsided "free" trade agreements with other countries.

So no, we can not go back and ask for a redo. Now a company headquartered in Phoenix Arizona can make products in China with materials from Indonesia and customer support in India with accounting done in South Africa and sell it to people in Europe. That's just the way it is.

Nope, I call a redo. We still have the largest economy and military on earth, so we still control the game and can change the rules at our whim.

Imposing restrictive trade barriers will only hurt us while the rest of the world passes us by. So the question is, can we accommodate the changes? Yes we can, but it doesn't involved becoming an island unto ourselves.

Evidence? The rest of the world ALREADY has imposed restrictive trade barriers against the US as evidenced by my previous points. We paved the streets and allow two way traffic at both ends, but others have wisely chosen to ban the incoming side of their trade when it competes with their own domestic markets. To give an example, if I'm a Japanese auto corporation I can readily export my vehicles to the US. However, if I'm a domestic auto company like Ford and try to turn around and export to Japan I get slapped with heavy import tariffs that make my vehicle completely uncompetitive in the Japaneses market. End result, they gain international market share and I, the domestic producer, has nowhere to go but down. New markets are closed to me through protective trade practices in other countries and my own domestic markets are being cannibalized by overly lax import restrictions, aka what the American public has been sold as "free trade". Free trade is anything but free in practice.

 

[cwjerome]

Economies had time to adapt when it was regional and slow, as opposed to today.

Economies still have time to adapt if they are smart. This means having the proper political and cultural stance, which the US hasn't been strong on in the past 20 years. What you're describing is a political and cultural problem, not an economic problem. The economic issue is fairly unchangeable and essentially good. We lack the political and cultural fortitude to make adaptation work well. We are struggling because we our culture is overly consumerist and doesn't save, and because politically we can't operate long term.

The US did this because it sought to open huge new export markets; we were the only fully industrialized country standing after WWII and wisely sought to take advantage of the situation by preaching the virtues of "free" trade, although in hindsight this short term gain was not worth the long term effects as we're seeing today.

Not worth the effects? The US has been the world's sole superpower for almost 25 years. Our per capita GDP is almost 25 times that of China's. Our military supremacy is unmatched by the rest of the world combined. We didn't arrive at this position because of a mercantilism/imperialism, we did it by promoting trade and lifting other nations up... the better other countries do the better we can do. A rising tide, trade, lifts all boats... and our boat is still the biggest. It's not zero sum. The growth of world per capita GDP and % of people NOT living in poverty over the last 50 years is unheard of in human history and nothing short of extraordinary. Life expectancy and literacy figures are similar. During this time, often referred to as the "long peace," war and violence has decreased quite dramatically. Win.

For some reason you want to hold on to a point in time and somehow preserve it forever. Not only is this impossible, it's disastrous. Just like in any other time in history, but much more so today because of the speed the world operates, we need to expand knowledge, innovate, be dynamic, push technological advancement, and LEAD. We need to be on the cutting edge of change, not holding onto the past. We are either going to be in the front seat or the back... you want the back. You want the economy of a developing country.

I'm not arguing that we are doing things correctly... we're not in my opinion. But regression, isolation, and overly restrictive trade is even more wrong.

And I would argue it depends highly on the type of trade you're talking about. One of the reasons Haiti is so poor in the first place is due to globalization; their farmers can't compete with US farmers on price due to the economies of scale, industrialization, and the fact that agricultural products in the US have heavily distorted final market prices due to farm subsidies. This creates two problems; it weakens the internal market for Haiti's own farm products because US foodstuffs can be imported much more cheaply than buying local foodstuffs and it causes Haiti's main potential export to the world, food, to be completely uncompetitive in the international export market. This happens to poor countries all over the world; their best avenues to accrue the wealth required to industrialize and rapidly start raising their standard of living is blocked by more established international players.

Fantasy. What they need is political and economic stability, and for outside investment to be brought in. Trade will lift them up just like it has with every other nation on earth. The evidence of how nations advance and grow is irrefutable.

Globalization is a different side of the same coin of "trickle-down" economics; it's a race to the bottom with those with the cash to exploit the system being the only ones to benefit. "Free" trade is anything but free because most prosperous nations DON'T have liberalized markets when it competes with their domestic markets. The powers that be that control the US have absolutely no interest in protecting our own domestic industries in a similar fashion as evidenced by the rust belt, the decaying manufacturing core of our country that resulted from unfair, lopsided "free" trade agreements with other countries.

lol, trade drives progress. If we don't adapt to progress -and we aren't doing it as well as we could- that's our fault, not progresses fault. It's like trade is a supercharged V12 in our car, propelling us forward. Instead of tweaking the engine to give us some more HP and better mileage so our journey is even better, you want to put in a rusty 4 cylinder. Give me a break, we need to tweak our engine, not dump it.

Nope, I call a redo. We still have the largest economy and military on earth, so we still control the game and can change the rules at our whim.

More fantasy, and very arrogant one at that. Our whim? You are correct in that we can change OUR rules, but the rest of the world will continue the path, while we quickly fall by the wayside.

 

[Joepublic2]

Okay, I thought about it and I concede a lot of your points. But we still need to protect our own domestic industries like other nations do or we're bound to lose out economically, I would think through better treaties and import tariffs to protect domestic production until it's globally competitive (or permanently for things where de-facto slave labor is used for production), which was the main thing I was stabbing at.

We also need to remove the huge underclass in this country which is illegal workers which take jobs from Americans and depress the wages of the ones they don't take, and kick out H1-B workers until every american that wants a job can get one. You have to put your own interests first.

 

[cwjerome]

I agree you bring up serious concerns, but I tend to believe so much of our current situation is because we sold our soul (mostly to the Chinese) to gorge on spending. In other words, we are selling off our assets to foreigners to buy a couple more lattes a day. It's not so much economic policies crewing us but our own behaviors.

We spend too much. We don't save and we create deficits (personal and governmental). Can we make policy to help with this matter? Of course not, we cannot function long term in a political sense. The politician wants to be elected today, and he'll make your life better tomorrow. 5 years from now? 20 years from now? Those might as well be in another universe.

And I really believe we had better fully commit to education, at all levels. That is going to be our ticket to ride. We need to promote an energetic, dynamic, knowledgeable population that can think. We are going to need to produce new crops of thinkers, entrepreneurs, inventors and risk-takers who can create new products, new services, and new worlds.