I've just seen one of Mitt Romney's new campaign commercials, here, or watch it below.
Romney's emerging economic strategy is clear: blame China. Not only does this get the heat off of GOP-linked (yes, I know) constituencies like Wall Street, it also skewers the administration, which has played appeaser to Beijing.
Some might call this a cynical case of scapegoating. Comparisons to the old red scare and yellow peril will doubtless be forthcoming.
But this raises an interesting question: Is scapegoating still scapegoating when the scapegoat is guilty? The Chinese economic threat is hardly imaginary, unless one still believes in the Pollyanna "free" (as if!) trade economic fantasies of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Cato Institute, and the Wall Street Journal.
I wrote before about what Romney and the Republican establishment may be up to here: pivoting to economic nationalism as the only rightist economic ideology that is still viable in this country. On some level, I think that this establishment knows that it's either that or be swept away in some leftist deluge, even if not an immediate one.
As I noted in this article and this one, the datapoints on Romney's true intentions are unclear. But the picture does seem to be firming a little, as the more he stays on this trope, the harder it will be to walk away from it if elected.
Follow Ian Fletcher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IanFletcher
Steve Jobs said that it is easier to do business in China, and literally all Apple products are made there. Just ask yourself: Do you work as hard as Chinese? Are you as smart as Chinese? Are you as ambitious as Chinese?
Maybe Candidate Romney has a point $273 billion and climbing!
Funny when you think about it before President Clinton signed all those Free Trade Agreements and gave Permanent Most Favored Trade Status to China our deficit while importing lots of oil was $30-60 billion a year. Now thanks to Unrestricted Free Trade we are down 30+% on our manufacturing jobs and the deficit is 10 times greater at $600 billion a year!
Free Trade is a good deal for the Wall Street Elite it's a bad deal for us mundane Main Street people.
It's destroying the middle class and eliminating opportunities for the poor!
The number speak for themselves!
Anyone who would argue is either a Wall Street Elite Crony, a Wall Street Stooge, or to dumb to read a graph!
Opposing Arguments?
Thank you for your consideration.
American liberals complain about lCjina is. BOTH, too socialist and too capitalist
Reality is the two ideological camps simply display American historic lack of tolerance for political alternatives
Combined with latent imperialist American ezclusivism
?
Senator Daniel Webster had the right idea, place tariffs on imports build a strong middle class and tell the rest of the world to leave us alone!
It only worked for 160+ years!
And we became the greatest power on the planet with that formula!
Bares repeating if you ask me!
The Chinese did go to the extreme at one point and built a wall (Great Wall of China, lol) and burned its fleet. I don't necessarily think we need to close our borders like the Chinese did, but we can if we want to. Too many globalists think the U.S. is too dependent on other countries. We don't need goods from other countries when it damages our economy.
Romney still has a ways to go. The proportional tariff where the tariff is proportional to the trade deficit to a particular country averts trade wars. The goal is balanced trade, which is better than either protectionism or free trade. China's tariff would be higher and Europe's less. It would gain international support as many other countries also face the same challenge of a high trade deficit causing high unemployment, weaker currencies, and higher budget deficits. Other countries, who do not manipulate their currencies, would also support as they would gain trade at the expense of the currency manipulators. As its goal is balanced trade, it is a tariff that is safe for international adoption. We are the world, as the saying goes.
If it is partly owned by an American Corporation at lease some of the profits come back to the U.S.
It the best we can expect on a really bad deal!
The jobs we lost were domestic, based on housing boom: construction, real estate, finance. They did not go to China, they disappeared. Productivity improvements destroy the most jobs. Robots, computers, the Internet, big-box stores. This site and others destroy more media jobs than they create. Nobody delivers or prints the HuffPost, that's thousands of lost jobs. If HP created jobs it would be more expensive than newspapers and would not happen. The Internet and Walmart destroy retail jobs. Productivity is based on job destruction.
China is a scapegoat, as Japan and Mexico were before them. Productivity is to blame.
Productivity improvements and automation also destroy jobs, but not to the extent that outsourcing does. It's a different thread entirely. Yes, if you have 100% automation you have created 100% unemployment. That is more a proof for the necessity of economic planning and a lesson on how to manage progress. The Luddites from the 19th century knew this well (the real Luddites who lost their jobs early in the Industrial Revolution).
About half of US trade deficit is oil imports. Drive a 40 mpg hybrid like me, that reduces the trade deficit and keeps more jobs in the US than anything else.
And of course immigrants take more US jobs than anyone - because we won't do them, they don't pay enough. Same with manufacturing jobs, corporations won't pay a living wage. And with health insurance averaging $15K for a family, companies can't afford to pay US workers enough. But there are plenty of starvation jobs, sign up here:
http://takeourjobs.org/
You are a master at twisting numbers! "ProductiviÂty improvemenÂts destroy the most jobs."
The housing bubble hid the fact between 2000-2008 we had lost 30+% of our manufacturing jobs.
Here in California we were counting on the high tech jobs to save our economy but those higher paying jobs were exported faster than regular manufacturing jobs!
I work in manufacturing and compete with China everyday - a long 12+hour day 6-7 days a week.
China has rightfully earned its position of Scapegoat!
Wish we had some Roosevelt Democrats!
A Roosevelt Democrat knows on an instinctual level unrestricted free trade agreements kill the middle class and eliminate opportunities for the poor.
A Roosevelt Democrat knows on an instinctual level BANKS to BIG to FAIL is a really bad idea!
From a Wall Street perspective Republicans make BIG promises to Wall Street but it's Clinton Democrats that deliver!
Going back further, Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic party, was highly distrustful of Wall Street and the banks. A successful economic run in the economy unfortunately also means extended credit. It's rather like a rubber band when it snaps back, like after the housing crisis or the Depression.
My preference for increasing the bank reserve rate is unproven and untested, but it would have the effect of decreasing debt and finance. After that, it becomes an economic question of how to finance new economic activity and investment. I believe that it is a quantity of money problem (positive) rather than a quantity of debt and loans.
Why? First, the corporations who are making money off trading with China have a lot of influence in the US government. Second, the US population is deeply conflicted. They say they don't want China to manufacture everything, yet they mostly buy Chinese goods instead of US goods because they prefer to buy things from the cheapest source more than they prefer to "buy American". Third, politicians often take positions which will gain them support in elections even if they don't plan to actually follow through on supporting these positions after they get elected.