General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEnormous, Humongous Trade Deficits Widen, Further Exposing Failed Policy
2/7/2015
In December the trade deficit in goods and services made its largest percentage jump in more than five years and the 2014 yearly total is its highest since 2012 - which begs the question: Why is the Obama administration doubling down on the failed trade policies of its predecessors?
The U.S. has run massive trade deficits for decades since the Wall Street-driven "free trade" ideology came to dominate. "Free trade" de-industrialization has cost our country millions of jobs, tens of thousands of factories and entire industries. It has pushed down wages and greatly increased inequality. Now the Obama administration is doubling down, pushing a vast "NAFTA-style" trade agreement and asking Congress to pass a rigged "fast track" process to pre-approve it.
...The Economic Policy Institute's Robert Scott pointed out that "The U.S. trade deficit in manufactured products increased to $524.2 billion in 2014, an increase of $76.8 billion (17.2 percent) from 2013. ... Growing trade deficits in manufactured products have been a primary driver in the displacement of U.S. manufacturing jobs since 2000."
The 2014 trade deficit with China increased by $23.9 billion to $342.6 billion. Exports to China were up $2.3 billion to $124.0 billion while imports from China increased $26.2 billion to $466.7 billion. Again, exports increased but imports increased more, resulting in job loss and a drain on our economy.
Korea and NAFTA
Since the Korea Free Trade Agreement, our trade deficit with Korea has surged more than 80 percent, which equates to the loss of more than 70,000 U.S. jobs. The U.S. goods trade deficit with Korea increased 20 percent in 2014 to more than $25 billion. 2014 exports to Korea were lower than 2011 -- which was before entering into the KORUS Korea FTA....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/enormous-humongous-trade_b_6636514.html
Meanwhile, why is John Kerry saying TPP will create over 650K US jobs, a number pulled out of a hat???
On the other side of the argument is the trade pact's potential to foster economic growth and job creation "650,000 jobs in the U.S. alone," as Secretary of State John F. Kerry asserted last month. But that widely challenged figure is extrapolated from a 2012 report by the Peterson Institute of International Economics, which didn't offer a jobs estimate. In fact, the report said the TPP might dislocate workers and drive older people out of the workforce and that any benefits might be canceled out by the resulting costs to workers and society. Evidence from earlier trade pacts, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, suggests that the benefits for developing countries among the treaty signatories are similarly oversold.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)while we are doing better. Thus, success is equated with "failure?"
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Real life disagrees.
USW: 2014 Trade Deficit Puts America on the Wrong Path; Fuels Income Inequality & Job Losses for American Workers
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/usw-2014-trade-deficit-puts-america-on-the-wrong-path-fuels-income-inequality--job-losses-for-american-workers-300032194.html
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Learning is a good thing~
Trade deficits and manufacturing job loss: Correlation and causality
http://www.epi.org/publication/bp171/
Report: Trade Deficit With Japan Resulted In Job Losses In Every State
http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2015/02/report-trade-deficit-with-japan-resulted-in-job-losses-in-every-state
NAFTA's effect on United States employment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_effect_on_United_States_employment
Free trade and the loss of U.S. jobs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-free-trade-and-the-loss-of-us-jobs/2014/01/14/894f5750-7d59-11e3-93c1-0e888170b723_story.html
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)February 3, 2015 Gallup.com
Here's something that many Americans -- including some of the smartest and most educated among us -- don't know: The official unemployment rate, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, is extremely misleading.
Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.
None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment...
http://www.gallup.com/opinion/chairman/181469/big-lie-unemployment.aspx
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/15/sunstein_2/
Kilgore
(1,733 posts)Have tried to explain this to some mindless cheerleaders and just get a blank stare.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Thats the way the unemployment number has been calculated for decades so trends up or down are significant.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It places the manufacturing job loss attributable to trade deficits at 20% ... meaning the vast major of manufacturing job losses had nothing to do with trade deficits. And that was looking at 2000-2003 numbers, when productivity was nowhere near what it is today and domestic use of US produced goods was far higher.
So one would suspect that if Bivens were to run the numbers from this decade, the job loss attributable to trade deficits would be even less.
That said, I am highly suspicious of any OP talking about trade deficits ... that doesn't mention a prime determinate of trade deficit/surplus ... the relative strength of the respective currencies.
ETA: And oh yeah ... even through the piece is a paper ... Bivens should know, it is bad academic form to cite to ones self.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)But a stronger dollar will make US goods less competitive, and act as a brake on further recovery. So how do we think about this? How much of the US recovery will be diffused to other countries via dollar strength and a bigger trade deficit?
What about the exchange rate and the trade balance? Hold off on that for a minute.
So what happens? Our currency rises, which causes a larger trade deficit ...
So, whats actually happening? The dollar is rising a lot, which suggests that markets regard the relative rise in US demand as a fairly long-term phenomenon which in turn should mean that a lot of the rise in US demand ends up benefiting other countries. In other words, the strong dollar probably is going to be a major drag on recovery.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/the-dollar-and-the-recovery-wonkish/
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Everyone's favorite Nobel-winning Keynesian is no longer gravely deluded on the global economy. How much can we trust him now?
...Paul Krugman was himself a supposed authority who gravely misled the American public on how to think about free-trade globalization. As threatening losses and dislocations accumulated for the US, the celebrated economist was like Voltaires Dr. Pangloss, assuring everyone not to worry. Pay no attention to those critics dwelling on the dark side of globalization, he said. Economic theory confirms that free trade is the best of all possible policies in this best of all possible worlds.
A good many Americans did not believe him, mainly working people who saw their jobs and middle-class wages decimated by the processes of globalizing production. Krugman said they didnt see the big picture. Educated professionals whose own livelihoods were not threatened by globalization were more likely to embrace Krugmans perspective. While he never won the debate with the broad public, his argument prevailed where it counts among the political elites who influence government policy-making. Both political parties, every president from Reagan to Obama, embraced the same free-trade strategy: support US multinational corporations in global competition, as their success is bound to lift the rest of the country.
Roughly speaking, the opposite occurred, not only for the working class but for the broad US economy. The multinationals did fine, but the nation is now mired in large and permanent trade deficits that translate into huge indebtedness to foreign trading partners in Asia and Europe and that exerts continuing downward pressure on US employment and wages. Yet the Obama government is seeking still more free-trade agreements as the answer. The current fiscal debates in Congress do not even recognize that free trade globalization is a core source of Americas diminished prosperity....
http://www.thenation.com/article/173593/why-was-paul-krugman-so-wrong
The TPP, btw, does nothing to stop currency manipulation by other countries. To put pressure on to have this included,the Alliance for American Manufacturing makes it EASY to write your reps in congress~
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026181506
pampango
(24,692 posts)Krugman can make mistakes. It would be foolish to say that anyone is perfect.
To say that he was wrong about globalization itself may not be accurate. He seems to believe that our problems are not due to globalization but our domestic policies that prevent us from benefiting from it in the way that progressive countries benefit.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)And the TPP will do NOTHING to change the currency manipulation by others. And it doesn't change the FACT that
Trade Deficits=Job Losses for US.
OP article~
Currency manipulation is not addressed in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement now under negotiation.
A February 2014 report from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), "Stop Currency Manipulation and Create Millions of Jobs," shows how currency manipulation by China and others are costing the United States between 2.3 million to 5.8 million jobs.
Japan's currency manipulation contributes to the approx. 897,000 us jobs lost to our 2013 trade deficit with that country -- 466,000 of those in manufacturing....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)It is, actually, the ultimate austerity package, eventually.
benz380
(534 posts)Goldman Sachs, Murdoch, TPP, Wall Street...
The only way I could support her is if I were well-off and part of the "I got mine, so forget you" crowd.
djean111
(14,255 posts)I don't think she can win, she is very shaky on liberal or progressive rhetoric, and, of course, whoever the GOP runs will be stellar at GOP "values".
But, yeah, if she wins, she is the poster child for global corporatism. For Wall Street. For banks. And those special interests do not wish us well. At all. But when I read a totally sincere comment that insists Hillary is The One because Wall Street and the banks have already given her a huge amount of money - there is such a yawning chasm of a lack of awareness that it would be comical if it was not frightening.
She will ride the TPP/TTIP like Major Kong.
All we will have is Lesser Evil.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Thank you.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)I know that it has already been reported on, but it is so very ripe to be exploited by the assholes in the Republican Party.
If Brian Williams continues to receive such widespread condemnation and is effectively labeled a liar, I can just imagine the ads already that will target Hillary.
And, I do think there is a chance they will be successful with enough of the tuned-out American population to label Hillary a liar and not to be trusted to run our country.
Even if she's running against Jeb Bush or Scott Walker (which is a horrifying thought).
I'm just thinking about what they did successfully with John Kerry (Swift Boat Vets) even when they should not have been able to do so.
Hillary has a potentially very troubling area that is just waiting to be exploited, and it's one that I think could be exploited successfully.
progree
(10,908 posts)In my mind, a gaffe is when you make an unintentional mistake -- like when the tongue gets ahead of the brain. When one deliberately repeats it, that's something else. If it was a Republican we were talking about, we would correctly call it a fucking out and out bald-faced lie. But since DU exists to unite and coronate Hillary, then, yeah, let's just call it a gaffe.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/us/politics/25clinton.html
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)for the One Percent and their purchased, corrupt politicians.
They are laughing and lying all the way to the bank.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)to become World Domination. IMO, when corporatists/bankers have locked so many countries up in these suffocating trade deals that they can crash any nation's economy at will, this is global dictatorship.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)John Kerry is a fucking liar. He did not deserve my support in the 2004 election. I allowed my hatred for Bush to cloud my judgement.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)We weren't idiots, our judgment wasn't clouded. Kerry had changed.
Even so, as SoS, I think he did a great job on the effort to keep us out of combat in Syria earlier, and there were some other good effects of his tenure.
On this one, though, he is very wrong.
I'm tempted to point out that Kerry married his money; he didn't acquire it by understanding economics.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Autumn
(45,097 posts)Or Tricks and all the usual stuff.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)It's not looking so good since the factories have shut down and moved to Mexico, making CEOs & stockholders better off with low wage workers, and turning town's like the one I saw today into a ghost of its former self. Such beautiful old homes, crumbling now.
Truly heartbreaking.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Even in towns not yet devastated, so much looks tired and abandoned. Infrastructure neglected, potholes. People can't afford to keep their lawns and homes maintained the way they used to.
This country has been hollowed out from within.