is the only country in the G20 that doesn’t protect domestic industry,

[rhett o rick]

according to Thom Hartmann this morning.

He also said that 50% of manufactured goods imported into this country come from China.

I apologize for not yet having the sources for these statistics. But the point is that we desperately need protection for our domestic industries yet there are people in DU that will argue against these protections. Can someone explain.

I did find these statistics: “China ran a global trade surplus in manufactured goods of $201 billion last year, the U.S. posted a troubling $662 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods.”

http://www.industryweek.com/articles/china_poised_to_pass_u-s-_in_manufactured_goods_exports_11701.aspx

[anonymous171]

1. Xenophobe. nt

[Hello_Kitty]

4. Beat me to it! eom

[rhett o rick]

5. Are you calling me a xenophobe? nt

[anonymous171]

6. It was a joke, friend

:hi:

[rhett o rick]

7. oh........never mind (Emily Latella). nt

[kenny blankenship]

2. How can you have "free trade" with a principle player on the global stage

that maintains an artificially low valuation for its currency - and hence artificially low prices for its goods?

Free Trade is a dirty joke.

(And yeah, we're the only country that actually follows "free trade" as an officially sanctioned & enforced ideology, other countries are protectionist as they want to be. We don't follow "free trade" because we're just honest, fair minded, law abiding folk and the others are not; on the contrary, we follow the insane doctrine of "free trade" because it is the chief weapon used in the class warfare practiced against workers in this country. Free Trade is a Weapon of Mass Disenfranchisement)

[rhett o rick]

9. You cant have “free trade” unless everyone is participating equally? nt

[Unvanguard]

16. The same way you have free trade without such a player. It makes no difference.

Well, it means that China gets more pieces of paper, while the US gets more goods...

[kenny blankenship]

18. If you lose your job it doesn't matter how cheap China's lead tainted plastic crap is.

[Unvanguard]

20. By that logic, we should never do anything that increases productivity.

Most economic development involves (temporary) displacement of workers.

[kenny blankenship]

21. You have a real hard on for the American worker and middle class, don't you?

Temporary displacement? The working class in America has been ground down and 'displaced' by the policies of both parties for 30+ years. NO UPSIDE. NONE AT ALL. Not unless you're investor class.
If you can't acknowledge the basic fucking reality of that generational screw job THEN YOU HAVE NOTHING OF INTEREST TO SAY.

Let me know if you manage to keep your smug prick attitude after losing your job to "temporary displacement" that goes on for a decade or so. Until then, just fuck off.

[Unvanguard]

22. That's really not much of an argument. More like a series of assertions.

It's certainly true that right-wing economic policies--tax cuts for the rich, weakening of the social safety net, the decline of employer-provided health insurance, anti-union legislation--have hurt American workers. I'm against all of those things.

But this has nothing to do with protectionism, which harms American workers by raising prices. Such policies are not pro-worker: they do not alter the balance of power between employer and worker, or force the employer to treat workers better. Their only effect is to increase the quantity of resources that must be used up to produce the same number of goods; in so doing, they reduce general prosperity for the benefit of the few who happen to be involved in the particular protected industry.

[rhett o rick]

25. American workers dont benefit from your "lower prices" if they are out of work.

Every other modern country employees protectionism but the Us. THAT IS WHY WE ARE SO FAR BEHIND IN the balance of trade. We are dying and some are worried about harming "free trade".

[pampango]

26. Still repeating the "Every other modern country employees protectionism but the Us" meme,

I see. What happened to "He (Thom Hartmann) was quoting something and I will find it for you."

Your response was to my post: "The EU has to follow the same tariff rules and domestic subsidies limits that we do. In light of that and the fact that they import more from China than we do, it's pretty hard to make a case that they protect domestic industry differently than we do. It's easy to say that everyone in the G20 does it except us. Proving that is the case would require a bit more work for Mr. Harmann.

In your OP you seem to be making the case that the US' immense imports from China proves that we don't protect our domestic industry, then claiming the the EU (as a large part of the G20) does protect their domestic industries even though the import even more from China than the US does. You could easily make a case that many countries in the G20 need to take extreme measures to balance trade with China, since most of them run big deficits, not just the US.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Protectionism is only wrong when we do it.

IOKIYANTUS

It's OK if you are not the U.S.

[rhett o rick]

15. Every other modern country protects their domestic industry.

The US doesnt because the international corporations that run this country dont really want "free trade", they want their companies in China to get great markets in the US.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. And can't figure out why their scheme doesn't work out.

When the wages of American workers stagnate and we can no longer draw upon our credit cards because the genuises who devised the scheme WRECKED OUR ECONOMY!!

[pampango]

8. China exports more (or did in 2008 anyway) to the EU than to the US.

However you define or quantify "protecting domestic industry", the EU countries must not do much more of it than the US does. Quite a few of the G20 countries belong to the EU.

20.5 % of its exports went to the EU in 2008. 17.7% went to the US.

We need to do much to balance trade with China (and not just them). Obama has imposed some tariffs on Chinese imports lately and will be in China later this month. He seems more willing than Bush (talk about not saying much) to use the provisions in existing trade agreements to accomplish this. Bush was unwilling to challenge China and others on unbalanced trade, even though mechanisms for doing so exist. Obama seems less afraid to do so.

[rhett o rick]

10. What he said was that the US was the only country in the G20 that did not have laws in place to

protect domestic industries.

[pampango]

11. He can say whatever he want to say, but that doesn't make it so. The EU belongs to the WTO and IMF

just like we do. That membership limits what it can and can't do regarding tariffs and other forms of protection.

The EU has to follow the same tariff rules and domestic subsidies limits that we do. In light of that and the fact that they import more from China than we do, it's pretty hard to make a case that they protect domestic industry differently than we do. It's easy to say that everyone in the G20 does it except us. Proving that is the case would require a bit more work for Mr. Harmann.

The EU countries (and Canada and Australia and the rest of the developed world) definitely do a better job of protecting their citizens (if not their industries) from the ill effects that some trade can cause, e.g. national health care, strong social safety nets, progressive taxation, etc. Maybe that's what he was referring to. The EU definitely beats us in that regard.

[treestar]

12. Good information

National health care would also free up employers from having to provide the insurance too, so it would be more attractive to invest here.

[rhett o rick]

13. He was quoting something and I will find it for you. The fact that all other modern countries

protect their industries better than we do is exactly what he was referring to. Yes the EU has the same limitations that we do but we do not take advantage of those rules that allow the other G20 countries to protect their manufacturing industries. Our products cant compete because every other modern country has tariffs to protect their products. They subsidize their industries, they provide health insurance, etc.

My point is that we need desperately to change our trade policies.

[pampango]

14. Every other modern (developed) country has the same tariffs we do. Repeating that they don't

doesn't change anything.

Why would the US agree to Europe applying higher tariffs to our exports than we apply to theirs? They are as rich as we are, plus they live in more progressive societies.

I do agree that other countries have an advantage because they provide their citizens with health insurance. I think that progressive European countries developed national health care systems because it is the right thing to do and because their citizens demanded it. It is not Europe's fault that we are the last developed country to do anything about providing health care for our citizens.

[Hello_Kitty]

27. It's about enforcement.

When we went after China for violating trade rules by dumping tires on our market, as we were completely entitled to do, the free traders screamed that it was "protectionism". It's not that we don't have the same rules, it's that we haven't been enforcing them. The Bush admin. NEVER enforced them.

[pampango]

29. I agree. It's about enforcing the laws and international agreements that already exist.

Obama has begun to use these laws and agreements the way they were designed, not the way Bush ignored them out of stupidity or avarice. There are provisions in the trade agreements we have (and our own laws) that deal with countries manipulating their currency to promote exports and with huge trade imbalances between countries, but Bush ignored them, probably by design but perhaps due to incompetence, leaving the impression that the corrective mechanisms don't exist.

I don't mind if we import a little more from poor countries than we export to them. We have more money to buy stuff than they do. (Bill Gates can buy more of my stuff than I can buy of his.) But huge imbalances in trade create problems such as those that caused the current Great Recession.

Most posts on this OP were directed at the contention that the US was somehow unique in not having laws to protect domestic industry. We do have problems (largely centered on enforcement as you say), but that does not make us unique either. The EU imports more from China than we do, so it is hard to make a case that they are doing very well in protecting their industries from that competition. While the EU does a better job of protecting its citizens in many progressive ways, it does not when it comes to domestic industry.

[Mr Rabble]

19. Not quite true in practice-

We have always radically violated any and all treaties- especially economic agreements- if we felt that we wanted to. You can look at who was allowed into Iraq after we invaded as a good example of protectionism for US firms.
Now not much of this is manufacturing, but the US certainly engages in protectionist measures. They just happen to concern investors and not workers...

[Unvanguard]

17. Presumably they (we) do not agree that we "desperately need" such protections.

Protectionism harms most people for the benefit of a few.

[rhett o rick]

24. You can say that as you see our country crumble. We need protectionism.

Other wise kiss our way of life goodbye.

[JoeyT]

28. Wow, we have free marketeers here?

I guess our free market non-enforcement of trade laws is why we have such a thriving middle class and a massive overabundance of production jobs now. I can't open a paper without seeing factories advertising multiple well paid union positions.

Oh wait, that was 20 years ago. Now our economy is in the shitter and no one can find a job. But hey, goods are cheap!
(This kinda reminds me of what my great grandfather told me about living in the first depression: "You could buy an acre of land for less than a dollar." "Why didn't you buy a ton of land?" "No jobs. Didn't have a dollar.")