Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
Wed Sep 5, 2012, 06:47 PM Sep 2012

America's massive trade deficit: Why BIG tariffs won't hurt the United States [View all]

America is running a trade deficit with almost the entire world.

Here is a list of important nations with which we run deficits:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c1220.html
Trade in Goods with Canada:
2012: -17,418.3 (so far)
2011: -34,456.9
2010: -28,542.5

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html
Trade in Goods with Mexico:
2012: -33,923.4 (so far)
2011: -64,486.9
2010: -66,434.9

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c0003.html
Trade in Goods with European Union:
2012: -51,866.3
2011: -99,881.0
2011: -79,611.5

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5800.html
Trade in Goods with Korea, South:
2012: -7,245.7
2011: -13,246.7
2010: -10,028.9

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5330.html
Trade in Goods with India:
2012: -9,698.1
2011: -14,651.5
2010: -10,282.5

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4621.html
Trade in Goods with Russia:
2012: -9,413.2
2011: -26,332.8
2010: -19,684.7


Put succinctly, this means that all the major nations of the world, plus the EU, are exporting more goods to America than they are importing. This means that Globalism is generating jobs over there, and draining jobs from over here.

Globalism is not generating jobs for the United States. We're running big trade deficits with both so-called free trade nations like Europe, Mexico and Canada, and we're running big trade deficits with mercantilist nations like China.

America is generating jobs for the world, and the world is thanking us by draining jobs from us. Free traders like to deny this, but they cannot. The facts show that this is true.

You must ask yourself now, has America's working class been better off with low tariffs than they were without? Look at these charts and see:

[img][/img]
[img][/img]

Notice the correlation between shrinking tariffs and shrinking union membership and the middle class? That's because Globalization, by its nature, empowers employers to use cheap foreign labor to bust unions. They busted unions by closing union factories here and opening cheap labor factories in places like Mexico and China. This is a historical fact. Globalization is nothing short of a SUPERWEAPON against the working class. It is as effective against the working class as nuclear weapons are in war.

History shows in specific detail that offshoring, or global labor arbitrage, is destroying America's working class.
http://businessfinancemag.com/article/economic-amp-business-focus-global-labor-arbitrage-resets-wages-0401

Offshoring will flatten wages in the United States and other advanced economies.
Global labor arbitrage -- the practice of constantly replacing expensive labor in one location with cheaper labor in another -- has been a cornerstone of corporate strategy for more than a century. This strategy matured over the past decade as technology and higher levels of development in the low-wage nations enabled their workers to take on service jobs and knowledge work; no longer is the practice limited to low-level production jobs. As developing countries provide an increasingly skilled workforce, developed nations' ability to differentiate themselves is dissolving, and the companies operating in those countries no longer need to pay their workers a premium. The most widespread and lasting impact of the maturation of global labor arbitrage is the decline in real wages in the developed nations. CFOs of U.S. companies can prepare now for a permanent resetting of wages for many workers in the upper salary ranges.

Increased global competition and low pricing power are driving the more aggressive forms of arbitrage: overseas sourcing, offshoring and foreign direct investment. In the IT industry, these practices are already moving into their second generation; Indian companies that took work from the United States and Europe are now offshoring less-skilled jobs to lower-cost locations such as China and Malaysia. IT wages in the United States dropped by an average of 3 percent in 2004.


Outsourcing to foreign countries has eliminated high-paying manufacturing jobs and replaced them with low-paying service jobs. In fact, right now we are seeing an explosion in low paying jobs as part of the post-2008 recovery. High paying work? Not so much.


Now how do we get out of this? There are two ways out of this. The voluntary way is by tariffs.

Free traders bring up the Smoot-Hawley myth whenever the issue of tariffs is brought up. Do note, for one, that when the Republican-led Smoot-Hawley tariffs were passed, trade dropped at a level COMPARABLE to the drop in economic activity that occurred as a result of the Great Depression. Trade went down not because of Smoot-Hawley, but because everyone was poor and were more interested in keeping their goods and resources at home to consume. Smoot-Hawley neither caused the Depression, nor did it exacerbate it. The drop in trade would have happened if Smoot-Hawley never occurred. Furthermore, trade increased and America's trade surpluses did not occur because Smoot-Hawley was dropped. It occurred because America emerged as the lone manufacturing superpower. The United States also devalued its currency by inflating away its postwar debt in the late 1940s. Which is exactly what China has been doing. America's dollar skyrocketed thereafter against the world's currency, and tariffs dropped. Globalism then proceeded to go to work on the American economy like colonies of Formosan termites, and now we see the damage that it has done.

There is one other thing that free traders have forgotten when it comes to the Smoot-Hawley myth: America wasn't running the kind of monster trade deficits that we're running now. Make no mistake, had America been running gargantuan trade surpluses in the 1930s and the Depression was NOT in effect, Smoot-Hawley might have been disastrous. MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

Free traders fear to talk about this basic fact: When you are running hundreds of billions of dollars in trade deficits with other nations, it hurts you less to put up tariffs than it hurts them. Especially when you have the kind of manufacturing capacity that the United States has.

Big tariffs, big enough to totally cancel out mercantilist advantages, mean prices go up for America, but jobs disappear elsewhere. China, Europe, Mexico, India, etc., their job growth in part depends on exports to America.

Cutting off those imports means we stop bleeding out jobs. No more factories closing, no more tech jobs leaving the country, no more of that bullshit. Period. Full stop.

Let me repeat: cutting off cheap labor imports means a FULL STOP to the exodus of jobs out of the country. FULL. STOP.

I'll let you think about that for a second.





Right now, if you explain this to a free trader, if they're wily enough, they'll hit you with "but... IMPORT SUBSTITUTION!!!" So what is import substitution? It means, basically, the replacing of imported goods with domestic production. If clothes made in India cost $5 today and tariffs make it $50 tomorrow, import substitution means it'll be made in America instead.

Free traders are arguing, when they use the import substitution argument, that when BIG tariffs are slapped on India, the cost of clothes will go up and America will go without clothes instead of buying higher-priced clothes. They often add to this that tariffs will drive the cost of clothes up to $50 when it is Made in the USA.

The errors in their argument go from bad to laughable. The bad logic is that Americans won't go naked. They'll still buy clothes, and they'll be made by Americans. The laughable part is that clothes will go way up in price. You can find Made in the USA clothes quite cheap now.

Let's also take a look at consumer electronics, like Apple's iPad. The iPad's price is not mainly wages, it is profit.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/02/15/chinese-workers-get-only-8-from-each-apple-ipad-2/
As Apple desperately tries to repaint itself as a caring company when it comes to workers’ rights, news has emerged that employees in its suppliers’ Chinese factories get just $8 of the $499 sale price of each iPad 2.

Apple's profit margin off each iPad sale is better than 50%. That's a nice fat margin to make off kicking people like YOU out of work and sending the jobs over to a cheap labor place like China.

Now you know who REALLY benefits from this trade deficit.

Using tariffs to bring iPad jobs back to the USA would create 67,000 American jobs on the spot.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/12/18/if-apple-onshored-ipad-production-it-would-create-67000-american-manufacturing-jobs/
That’s the conclusion reached in this study here, that if Apple brought the assembly line for the iPad onshore into the US, that it would create 67,000 manufacturing jobs right here in America.


You'll notice, at the end of that last cited article, that the author mentions jobs lost elsewhere to pay for jobs gained by the working class. As you will all remember, the upper elite who own most of Apple's worth, aren't spending much. THAT IS WHY we have no good job growth. 67,000 American jobs means that people who typically spend money, will spend more of it. Money that trickles from the bottom up circulates more than money that trickles from the top down. 67,000 new workers with jobs will rev up the economy more than 67,000 without jobs and 5 investors a total of $1.8 billion saved by outsourcing to China (as the article calculates).

Think about that for a second... putting 67,000 Americans to work. Just for iPads. Henry Ford knew this was a good idea a century ago.



Again, I'll let you think about that for a second.








Despite these facts, however, free traders keep saying tariffs are evil and we owe the third world a living. They argue that we should lower our standard of living so the third world can "have a chance". So what if we have Americans living in squalor for want of a job? Free traders could give a rat's ass about them. They're just filthy Americans, after all. Which brings me to the next issue: the same free traders who accuse the anti-offshoring MAJORITY in America of hating foreigners, couldn't be bothered to piss on an unemployed American if he was on fire. Save the world, to hell with Americans. When you argue with a free trader in real life, be sure to tell them about their attitude and watch them shrug. Catch it on video and Youtube it so the rest of America can see just how disdainful they are of America's working class.

Anyhoot.

So, if we don't run this free trade mentality out of America, we absolutely must come to the second, and unavoidable way out of offshoring: the collapse of the dollar. This is something that free traders will never want to discuss. Try it, bring it up with them. Watch the subject get changed, quickly.

Fact #1: A large trade deficit devalues the United States dollar.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/1999/9910.html

Fact #2: A large trade deficit increases the national debt, particularly foreign-held debt.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/03/why-is-the-trade-deficit-impor.html

In short:
Our massive trade deficit is devaluing the US dollar, and eventually it will devalue the dollar to the point that imports will become impossible anyway.

In fact, the Von Mises Institute, a major supporter of offshoring, says that this is already happening.
http://mises.org/daily/2883
The slowdown of the American economy and the ensuing devaluation of the US dollar deliver gloomy headlines as timely as weather forecasts. The weakening currency may excite entrepreneurs anticipating increased exports. As well, it might have a stimulating effect for American professionals who are paid in return for our services.



China, mind you, is doing its best to prevent the devaluing of the dollar against the Yuan. The way they are doing it is complicated, but it falls under the term "sterilization accounts", and basically it means China is propping up the US dollar. Artificially. As we all know, such tactics are not sustainable.


So, basically, if your friendly neighborhood free trader closes their ears and goes "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" about the benefits of tariffs for America, you can explain to them this:

Globalization will eventually devalue the dollar until imports become impossible. A devalued dollar is the most powerful form of natural tariff, and trade deficits are the most natural way to achieve a devalued dollar. Foreign outsourcing, or global labor arbitrage, is the ultimate form of economic Ouroboros. The only question is how long it'll take: as in, how long can China keep propping up the dollar?

Globalization will end. We the People will either euthanize it, or it will eat itself alive. The only question for the free traders is: how do you want it to end?
159 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
On an individual level - no one would make a bad bargain. xchrom Sep 2012 #1
For the American people it is a bad bargain. But not for Global Corporations sabrina 1 Sep 2012 #78
I know the argument is increase tariffs former-republican Sep 2012 #2
It would also create jobs, which offset the higher prices. Zalatix Sep 2012 #4
tell me how it would create jobs? former-republican Sep 2012 #5
Ah, so you totally ignore my OP but I am required to answer your questions? Zalatix Sep 2012 #8
That's not a fact that our dollar will eventually devalue more. former-republican Sep 2012 #14
That is absolutely wrong. No amount of regulation of the Federal Reserve will stop that. Zalatix Sep 2012 #21
FACT former-republican Sep 2012 #26
FACT!!! 250 BILLION of that deficit is imported non-oil goods. Zalatix Sep 2012 #31
Are you in 3rd grade? former-republican Sep 2012 #38
Did you even MAKE it to third grade? Zalatix Sep 2012 #42
Show us the regulations that will stop the dollar from devaluing. Can you answer that? Zalatix Sep 2012 #36
There is none, that's the problem former-republican Sep 2012 #40
Hey, at least you admit you can't support your own argument. Zalatix Sep 2012 #43
Yea let the federal reserve run wild. former-republican Sep 2012 #51
Similarly, the high dollar policy that the United States has pursued since the Clinton years HiPointDem Sep 2012 #53
He doesn't care about jobs, or American workers. Zalatix Sep 2012 #58
You are getting very confused. Let's recap what you said. Zalatix Sep 2012 #57
Let me asking a very simple question former-republican Sep 2012 #63
Why not bring up the Von Mises Institute? They're correct about the dollar/trade relationship. Zalatix Sep 2012 #68
that's fine former-republican Sep 2012 #70
Of course I do. If you don't like tariffs, you will get devaluation instead. Zalatix Sep 2012 #74
It's not about liking or disliking former-republican Sep 2012 #77
Like I said, if we don't do tariffs, we will see devaluation instead. Zalatix Sep 2012 #81
good , now that we have that out of the way former-republican Sep 2012 #84
But which would you choose? Devaluation or tariffs? Zalatix Sep 2012 #87
Do you have any idea how long a plan like that takes to implement? former-republican Sep 2012 #90
Cheap labor is the biggest factor. Zalatix Sep 2012 #91
Wage is a small part of it former-republican Sep 2012 #92
You've got to be kidding me, that is not just inaccurate, it's CRAZY inaccurate. Zalatix Sep 2012 #93
Yearly not Monthly former-republican Sep 2012 #104
holy cow former-republican Sep 2012 #106
Holy cow back at you. Zalatix Sep 2012 #107
It is clear to me you have no understanding of the automobile industry former-republican Sep 2012 #125
It is clear that you get your facts from an alternative universe. Zalatix Sep 2012 #126
huge tarrif on finished goods.. subsidy for imported raw matierials RedRocco Sep 2012 #95
His whole argument is faulty, and it's self-destructive, too. Zalatix Sep 2012 #128
Both of you should be ashamed tkmorris Sep 2012 #136
Wasn't a TOTAL waste of time for me. Zalatix Sep 2012 #138
Simple abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #23
Our productivity will take care of the difference there. Zalatix Sep 2012 #24
Not to mention abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #28
Wrong--Goods would become MORE affordable for American workers unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #54
Except if the US has a strong (overvalued) dollar, that means it's able to buy up other countries' HiPointDem Sep 2012 #64
No..no..they'd never throw up retaliatory tariffs. davidpdx Sep 2012 #98
Let them hit us with retaliatory tariffs. Zalatix Sep 2012 #113
Amen unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #131
So what? unlawflcombatnt Sep 2012 #130
You have your facts wrong. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #132
Exactly. The math cannot be beaten. Zalatix Sep 2012 #112
Free traitors have sold us out. Lasher Sep 2012 #3
Smoot-Hawley was just the last of 3 republican tariff increases from 1921-1930. FDR opposed it. pampango Sep 2012 #18
Your arguments completely ignore basic facts that I posted in the OP. Zalatix Sep 2012 #22
FDR thought that Smoot-Hawley was bad for the US. If you disagree with him that is your right. pampango Sep 2012 #39
History disagrees with the claim that Smoot-Hawley was bad for America. Zalatix Sep 2012 #44
FDR disagreed with your version of history that Smoot-Hawley was not bad for America. pampango Sep 2012 #102
History is more credible than FDR. History disagrees with FDR. Zalatix Sep 2012 #110
I disagree with your interpretation of history and will continue to side with FDR, not the repubs. pampango Sep 2012 #117
You'll continue to side with the US Chamber of Commerce, not the working class or history. Zalatix Sep 2012 #123
As I said in #115: "I will not ask you to say hi to your 'friends' in certain conservative groups pampango Sep 2012 #140
Oh I know these countries don't have laws against moving factories overseas. Zalatix Sep 2012 #142
And yet they have strong and widespread unions and a strong middle class. pampango Sep 2012 #144
You are STILL trying to argue that S/H hampered the recovery. It is STILL wrong. Zalatix Sep 2012 #145
You certainly portray yourself as a committed "us vs them" adherent. pampango Sep 2012 #147
And you certainly are committed to "throw US under the bus". Zalatix Sep 2012 #149
"So you admit there was no correlation between S/H and the lack of a recovery." - No. pampango Sep 2012 #150
Your S/H "correlation" is weak, tenuous, and that's being generous. Zalatix Sep 2012 #153
You said that trade and the economy went up together and down together. That's correlation by pampango Sep 2012 #156
other way redonaire0013 Sep 2012 #151
You didn't actually list a fact that Smoot-Hawley didn't harm trade. You stated an opinion mythology Sep 2012 #129
The Smoot Hawley Zealots have not shown any evidence to support their claims. Zalatix Sep 2012 #133
Hoover opposed the bill. Lasher Sep 2012 #27
Pampango refuses to recognize the fact that Smoot Hawley didn't even occur under the same situation. Zalatix Sep 2012 #34
Hoover signed the bill. His opposition must have been pretty weak. n/t pampango Sep 2012 #37
Read the Wikipedia article you linked upthread. Lasher Sep 2012 #41
Both Presidents had to sign legislature they initially disliked. Zalatix Sep 2012 #45
FDR also viewed Smoot-Hawley as "vicious, extortionate, and obnoxious" AND he opposed it. pampango Sep 2012 #100
So Smoot-Hawley was not strictly a Republican bill Lasher Sep 2012 #114
FDR opposed it. Almost exclusively republican congressmen passed it. It was signed by a republican pampango Sep 2012 #118
Hoover expressed his opposition. Lasher Sep 2012 #120
Actions speak louder than words. FDR expressed his opposition to S/H and followed it up with action. pampango Sep 2012 #121
Actions do speak louder than words. Lasher Sep 2012 #122
Plenty of Presidents have caved just like Hoover did. Zalatix Sep 2012 #127
BTW China used trade barriers bigger than Smoot-Hawley and they were successful for them. Zalatix Sep 2012 #143
Like Obama and closing Gitmo, He signed the bill preventing such. TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #152
FDR was a CLASSICAL Liberal until the day he died. Odin2005 Sep 2012 #29
Indeed he was. I have never read that he "worshiped Free Trade as if it were a god" but he did pampango Sep 2012 #105
I take it you do not include the USA as one of the world's progressive countries. Lasher Sep 2012 #116
You are correct. We have become less progressive in the last 30 years. pampango Sep 2012 #119
They also have barriers against imports, too. Zalatix Sep 2012 #134
Not the "VAT as a tariff" argument again. pampango Sep 2012 #139
I didn't say "tariff", I said TRADE BARRIERS. Zalatix Sep 2012 #141
All countries should agree that pollution should be punished. Of course, the US creates 3 1/2 times pampango Sep 2012 #146
To hell with treaties. Zalatix Sep 2012 #155
That's what Bush's attitude was. To hell with treaties or what any other country wants. pampango Sep 2012 #157
I never said for the world to live by my rules. Zalatix Sep 2012 #158
How much of that is oil? dkf Sep 2012 #6
Fossil fuel tax? That's nuts. Zalatix Sep 2012 #7
Here's where we get our oil. dkf Sep 2012 #10
We need to stop using fossil fuels. Zalatix Sep 2012 #13
You want to guarantee republicans stay in power former-republican Sep 2012 #9
Well that is what the OP is proposing by talking up tariffs dkf Sep 2012 #11
I don't either , tax credits for converting to solar , wind former-republican Sep 2012 #17
So we instead choose to hit them with droughts, acidic oceans and wars over oil? Zalatix Sep 2012 #20
You keep intentionally ignoring a critical point in my OP. Zalatix Sep 2012 #12
I'm avoiding nothing former-republican Sep 2012 #16
You did avoid it. You're avoiding it now. Zalatix Sep 2012 #19
Still waiting for a response. You haven't addressed the OP argument at all. Zalatix Sep 2012 #35
Now included in the 2012 Democratic platform: The Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement woo me with science Sep 2012 #15
We must beat the TPP to death at the grass roots, like we did SOPA/PIPA. Zalatix Sep 2012 #25
There has never been a country that has industrialized under low tariffs Odin2005 Sep 2012 #30
You mean TARIFFS saved America after the Civil War? What ever will the tariff-hating crowd say? Zalatix Sep 2012 #32
But the 1% are getting filthy rich upi402 Sep 2012 #33
I vehemently agree Populist_Prole Sep 2012 #46
us has a strong dollar policy, which is the ultimate source of our deficit in trade and budgets. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #47
Yup, look what a strong currency did to Japan. Zalatix Sep 2012 #48
what? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #49
My point was that Japan's strong yen hurt their exports and made offshoring explode. Zalatix Sep 2012 #50
ok, i get it. i thought you were being sarcastic. yeah, japan's boom years were weak-yen. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #52
a strong dollar AND tariffs? doesn't compute. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #55
Next, tell 'em about competitive devaluation. Zalatix Sep 2012 #59
i don't get your drift. and i think you missed my addendum: HiPointDem Sep 2012 #62
Competitive devaluation Zalatix Sep 2012 #66
i understand the meaning, i just don't see your point. china intentionally keeps the yuan WEAK. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #69
China used to have high tariffs against the US, along with a weak Yuan. Zalatix Sep 2012 #73
as is typically the case with developing economies and makes perfect economic sense. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #75
True, but why should China be bothered by being a platform for foreign capital? Zalatix Sep 2012 #79
their workers aren't suffering? what? of course they are, in multiple ways. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #82
I'd rather have a job in China than be homeless and jobless here. Zalatix Sep 2012 #85
Spikes Under Chinese Overpasses To Prevent Sleeping Homeless? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #89
So you'd rather be a jobless worker here? Zalatix Sep 2012 #94
the point being there are homeless in china -- & everywhere. what i'd rather is to end the beggar HiPointDem Sep 2012 #96
No, what I believe is that being jobless sucks way too much Zalatix Sep 2012 #97
The point is this: abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #56
Basic. Fact. Of. ECONOMICS. Zalatix Sep 2012 #60
who is 'us' in this sentence? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #61
us = US abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #65
huh? it could lead to war versus china, and it would have a major effect on americans. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #67
Eventually we will devolve back into a decentralized society. abumbyanyothername Sep 2012 #71
no time soon. the signs point in the other direction: an increasingly centralized global society HiPointDem Sep 2012 #72
Capitalism is already limited to its home territory - Earth. Zalatix Sep 2012 #76
ah, yes, but it hasn't as yes marketized every available niche. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #80
Hasn't China been building up its military with its weaker currency? Zalatix Sep 2012 #83
china reportedly spends 2% of its gdp on its military. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #86
How much do we spend on plundering resources from other nations? Zalatix Sep 2012 #88
So you are essentially saying we should bail on the WTO and all free-trade agreements davidpdx Sep 2012 #99
Either that or let the FTA's sink our currency. Zalatix Sep 2012 #101
Don't know about the poster you are responding to but that is certainly what the teabaggers and pampango Sep 2012 #103
You should get tired of that inaccurate poll getting smacked down, over and over again: Zalatix Sep 2012 #108
I've decided to keep posting Pew polls even though you judge them to be 'inaccurate'. pampango Sep 2012 #109
I've decided to keep responding to you with polls that reflect reality. Zalatix Sep 2012 #111
I have not asked you to stop posting the polls. Nor will I disparage them unless they come from a RW pampango Sep 2012 #115
The OP pretty much indicated that was what he/she was advocating davidpdx Sep 2012 #124
The WTO & GATT have undermined the United States on the environment. Case in point: Zalatix Sep 2012 #135
I agree the environmental standards need to be improved worldwide davidpdx Sep 2012 #137
It shouldn't be that hard to come up with an approximate value 4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #148
I bet Obama could do that and beat them in the WTO. Zalatix Sep 2012 #159
Was going to respond to post, but then saw the long arguments..... northoftheborder Sep 2012 #154
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»America's massive trade d...