US does not want protectionism: Hillary Clinton

[ChromeFoundry]

The US Secretary of State says technical education in India as the "best in the world"

Monday, July 20, 2009

NEW DELHI, INDIA: Though outsourcing is a concern for many businesses in the US, it should not be affecting the trade flow between India and USA, said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday.

Allaying fears about the reported anti-outsourcing stance in the backdrop of President Barack Obama's 'Say yes to Buffalo and no to Bangalore' comment made some time back, Clinton, who is on a official visit to India, said America does not want a return to protectionism.

"I think it's a friendly competition," she told NDTV in an interview. "We are competing with words and with laws, not with any other means. But certainly, especially in a global recession, every country is going to want that we have enough jobs for our people. What President Obama has said is that we do not want to return to protectionism."

There certain restrictions that the US government has imposed on companies receiving bailout funds from hiring foreign workers. "... So he (Obama) has really tried to speak against protectionism and to make sure our administration does not in any way give credence to it," she said.

Earlier, she had said the technical education in India as the "best in the world". While attending an interactive discussion on education in Mumbai, organized by 'Teach India', an NGO working for children's education, she said her country and India should work together in the field to help bridge the gap between talent and opportunities.

"Technical education in India was the best in the world. We need to work together in the field of educational opportunities," she said.

http://www.ciol.com/News/News-Reports/US-does-not-want-protectionism-Hillary-Clinton/20709122490/0/

Who's side you on, Hil?

[robinlynne]

1. We? I absolutely favor protectionism. let's see, you have:

on on side jobs, local purchasing, more sustainability, less energy usage
on the other side you have: cheap stuff, shipping everything all over the world no matter what the ecological cost, oh yeas, lower worldwide wages, less consumer protection...

protectionism works for me!

[ihavenobias]

19. K & R n/t

[Psephos]

32. US exporters would be crushed by that

Exporters of services as well as exporters of goods.

It's one of the things you learn in entry-level macroeconomics...no one can buy what you export unless you buy what they export. There can be more links in the chain, but bottom line is, a large balance-of-payments surplus (China) or deficit (US) eventually leads to serious trouble.

It's a lot like saying that unless companies pay their labor decently, laborers can't afford to buy the things that their labor produces for those companies.

[robinlynne]

34. I lived in Brazil for 20 years. All imports were taxed at a rate of 200%.

So, if you can produce something locally you do! The result; Brazilian industries grew and grew. Products which were REALLY differentiated were imported. Coffee continued to be exported from Brazil because you can't grow coffee in france or the US. It's that simple. It is called protectionism, not the end of trade. 200% was steep, but they really wanted to protect their growth, and guess what: Their economy is not doing so poorly.

[Psephos]

35. I would not choose Brazil as my example were I trying to discuss well-managed economies

It's almost heartbreaking to see how much farther ahead Brazil could be with such wondrous people and extraordinary resources.

[robinlynne]

42. Remember, there was a right-wing military dictatorship for years!

[Psephos]

48. True indeed n/t

[Deja Q]

2. She wants to counter the paranoia in other nations, who've ALREADY been practicing protectionism...

sadly, those nations then throw tantrums because most of us here start crying "What about us?" because of the protections and livelihoods we are losing. Pretty sad - fellow DUer OhioChick has posted DOZENS of articles telling of other countries' own acts of protectionism, which then has the US trying to appease them because millions of Americans are now clamoring for protectionism too.

It's now just bullshit.

I'm all for helping people, but so many Americans have lost their jobs in the process. Which includes people whose children went off to fight and die for this country too.

If trends continue, I will have to be protectionist. I'm annoyed with the fraud and everything else going on anyway.

And Ms Clinton's actions now say the US is at a disadvantage. Now it's time for her to come home and advise America's school systems to improve... and lower costs as well... if we are to truly compete.



Addendum: With the rise of lost jobs in America, where are the "opportunities" for us who have talent here? If we're global, let's be global. All the way. No country barriers. No kiss-up antics like putting one over another. No one country that has emissions and environment standards while others, who claim to be smarter, walk out of the same frigging meetings. No disparate cost of living which benefits others yet strangles us. Real globalism, or are large corporations scared of truly "free trade"? Get on with it; too many people everywhere are starting to lose out.





Edited: Subject line, tiny qualifier for clarification.

[OhioChick]

3. She makes me ill. n/t

[FreakinDJ]

4. What did you expect from WalMart's Corp Mouthpiece

Some one needs to tell her she works for the American people now and not Walmart

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Deja Q]

9. I'm all for helping people, but they need to do their part too.

India has NOT been showing that.

If all of this is part of some big sell-out or if there is a better future that truly is global... I just don't like these stupid half-assed mindgames. On the plus side, the media's lack of standards helps ensure all sorts of news gets transmitted -- 80s TV shows discussing fascist control said how the media was merged into only one outlet...

[FreakinDJ]

10. Its 1 sided trade policy - India and China left the negotiating table

it doesn't become much more of a "No-Brainier" then that, and if they are going to "Road Block" any reductions on the tariffs they impose on American goods entering their country what makes ANYONE believe they will submit to a Carbon Tax, Clean Air Standards, or Reductions in Green House Gases. No to mention predatory trade practices, export quotas and numerous other trade barriers to goods entering their country.

No - they have just the way they want it now - where is the incentive for change

[Deja Q]

12. Then what are they doing being part of, heck, anything, if they won't do their part?

The US has given them good deals, and here they are walking out and making their own whiny "We're special" comments when asked to curb their emissions, which is easier for them to do as it'd cost less for them to build than it would for developed countries to REBUILD. Big difference there.

That and arrogance is hardly a monopoly of the US, as so many media articles - covering so many topics - have recently and thankfully proven.

[blue97keet]

25. Remind her she does'nt work for Bill Gates either

[OhioChick]

26. No shit. n/t

[billyoc]

6. Clinton(D-Punjab)

[Deja Q]

7. If India's education is the best in the world, they must've been smart to walk out of the G8...

the environmental meetings...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jul/09/copenhagen-g8
(one out of a boatload of articles that reported India and China walking out of the environmental meetings)

Indeed, yesterday someone put up a picture of a boat - taken during Hillary's visit. All the children on it were Indian and holding upa big sign asking Hillary to stop global warming. (the pic is on DU) Hillary doesn't govern India. She can't do a damn thing there... that's up to India's government to make the call. So far, their walking out of things hasn't exactly inspired many, now has it...

[Birthmark]

8. Dear Madame Secretary,

Speak for yourself. Personally, I think we could use some good old fashioned down home protectionism. I happen to think it's important to have a domestic industrial base and jobs available to our citizens.

[lexanman]

38. Well not if your goal is to have everybody work for less than $2 a day

Like most in India, and China. That is their goal, believe that. Its not to help India and China fight against their own government and industry to demand better wages and working/living conditions. Its about forcing us and others who still have a semblace of a middle class for now, down to the level of sustinence living, like in China and India and other third world nations.

Its the height of irony that the right wing and Capitalists say the goal of Socialism is to make everyone equally poor. Ever think about that one? Projection is the primary tool of the right wing jerkoffs.

[cascadiance]

11. If their education is so good, then why do they come here for master's degrees?

I had a co-worker from India who was hired with H-1B. She was actually pretty bright. Many others I know aren't as bright, but she described it this way.

Indians get their bachelor's degrees through their own universities paid for (UNLIKE us!) When it is paid for, and they either likely have a growing industry domestically of outsourced operations, or can travel to the states on an H-1B Visa and in both cases make good money for their families for their economy doing so, then it's a pretty much a win/win solution for them to choose tech degrees. Compared to our education, when students have to pay for a bachelor's degree, and pay through the roof, and are facing an industry where these jobs are being either outsourced to places like India or replaced with H-1B's at the entry level here, many of the smart ones pick other professions to learn, knowing that it isn't worth their while to pick jobs with a comparatively doomed future here.

She said the main question facing Indian students is whether they pursue a post-graduate degree in computer science or not. She noted that though they can get a bachelor's degree for free there, that to get well positioned for the H-1B Visa slots here in the U.S., they need to get a post graduate degree in India or in the U.S.. Apparently the bachelor's degrees they'd get for free in India aren't by themselves sufficient to get them more qualified for jobs than Americans with that level of education here from our universities. They have to pay for post graduate degrees, so they can get them more cheaply there or pursue them here. So by having a post graduate degree, they're then above Americans with bachelor's degrees.

This isn't about them having a "better" technical educational system. It is all about opportunities and dollars and cents, and who pays for their education! If we'd return to Jerry Brown's free bachelor's degree model that was in California before Reagan ripped it down, then we'd have a more even playing field then!

[Deja Q]

13. Good catch, thanks!

I had my own viewpoint/slant/facet on the issue, but yours makes rather more sense.

Incidentally, Bonzo the chimp had more intelligence than Reagan ever dreamed for.

[timeforpeace]

14. Can you imagine how bad things would be if she had been elected?

[Umbral]

17. I imagine things would be just about the same. nt

[cascadiance]

20. She was saying this earlier too...

Normally I'm not a big Lou Dobbs fan, but I'm glad he put this on the air. Shows her for the "free trader traitor" she is!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs

Another one where she continues this mantra...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOW0cUaGWZU

She doesn't f'ing understand the real reasons why we have problems with domestic workers. You have to PAY for our college education to have a level playing field, not just "provide higher quality" education for tech fields. *SMART* kids here now know that the way our infrastructure is currently set up here, they're better off in other fields. They might LOVE the idea of working high tech and that might already be sold to them from that point of view, but they HATE the prospect of working for dirt pay or winding up on the unemployment line because of these corporatist SHILL programs like the H-1B program. If she wants my respect she'll talk to those who really understand the problem, not just trumpet those views of those that want more cheap labor at our expense!

[StevieM]

27. I can imagine if she had been elected. She would have been one of the best presidents this country

ever had. Supporting her campaign was one of the proudest experiences of my life.

So things would have been bad under Hillary? How so? Do you think she would have maintained the Bush tax cuts for the rich? Or that she would ignore global warming? Or that health care reform would not have topped her list of priorities? Or maybe she would have appointed anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court?

Steve

[OhioChick]

30. It would've sucked if you were a tech worker... n/t

[Deja Q]

45. Hyperbole and conjecture.

And people already knew where she stood.

[Skittles]

37. they would not be worse than they are now

[frebrd]

15. Speak for yourself, Hillary! n/t

[burning rain]

16. Guess that means I'm not part of US.

Despite their virtues, the Clintons are bad eggs on trade. They're free traders in a way to warm conservatives' hearts.

[cascadiance]

21. They're Free Trader Traitors!

[Joanne98]

18. She needs to RESIGN! LIAR! Remember when she ran against NAFTA in Ohio?

"Vote for me because I'm against NAFTA and Obama is for it". Then Austin Goolsbee told the Canadians two nights before the Ohio election that NAFTA was just "Ohio politics".

Which SHE leaked and that was the only reason she won this state in the primary.

Now we see a different Hillary. Out-sourcing in-sourcing %$#@&!

Ain't it grand?

[OhioChick]

23. Oh.....I remember what she said in Ohio real well. n/t

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JTFrog]

40. Enjoy your stay in the echo chamber. n/t

[OhioChick]

41. With a name like "h1ndoo" (hindu) why do I have a hard time believing you?

"Anti-guest worker activists, yet? :rofl:

[h1ndoo]

43. OhioChick

h1ndoo is a nym, not more than that. Plus, this nym gets banned in any pro H-1B forum immediately.
I understand I don't have enough post to gain your trust. Anyway, please join us and take a look what we are doing.
You have nothing to lose. Again, please send an email to: [e-mail]. Thank you.

[ChromeFoundry]

47. I'd say it's more than just the low post count...

re-read your post...sounds a bit suspicious. Just sayin'.

[h1ndoo]

44. OhioChick

Here is a clue:

http://www.google.com/search?q=here_signup%40yahoo.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[StevieM]

29. LOL...yeah, Obama could really fire her and it wouldn't affect his job approval at all.

It's not like Hillary has a huge base of support or anything.

You do realize that when she speaks about these matters she is speaking for the Obama administration?

And you do realize that Obama has totally forgotten his pledge to re-negotiate NAFTA, don't you?

Steve

[Psephos]

33. I did not support her - but fair is fair, she's doing what she's told. n/t

[Wednesdays]

22. K&R

:kick:

[Chisox08]

24. I guess the millions of unemployed Americans are not a part of the US

It seems that she is saying that Americans are not smart enough for high tech jobs. Most Americans students myself included has gone deep into debt inorder to get a job that we can support ourselves or a family, but once we graduate the only thing that is waiting for us is Walmart. I for one want a little protection from my government that was set up to protect to protect the common good of its citizens.

[blue97keet]

28. The media in this country report her visit to India is about terrorism

not "trade" or slave trafficking or however you describe it. Too hot a topic for prime time?

[KakistocracyHater]

36. how about that Japanese Protectionism? The Chinese version?

& they get free university education-how can we compete, when the lawmakers have raised the cost of higher ed to "balance the budget"? & then we have India making noises over visas & whose workers are better (& I thought I had GRADUATED from 2nd Grade, stupid me).

[Fearless]

39. Avoiding environmental issues...

The free market is anything but free if one nation has the ability to undercut another nation by a large amount because of virtual and literal slave labor. Protectionism is necessary.

[h1ndoo]

46. Clinton, aka Ms Punjab, is American IT worker's enemy

Clinton, in India, says 'outsourcing is a concern for many'

But the U.S. rejects protectionism, she asserts
By Patrick Thibodeau
July 21, 2009 06:56 AM ET

Computerworld - WASHINGTON -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton finished up her trip to India on Monday with a promise to improve cooperation on high-tech trade between the two countries, but she offered no specifics about how that will be accomplished.

Instead, Clinton left with an agreement that the two countries will continue talking "with the objective of facilitating smoother trade in high technology between the two economies."

That statement appears to be an effort to lessen protectionist fears in India triggered by a number of events, including a comment in May, by President Barack Obama that the U.S. has developed a tax code "that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, N.Y."

But what has really drawn the concern of India's tech industry is the threat of action by Congress, namely legislation by Sens. Chuck Grassley, (R-Iowa), and Dick Durbin, (D-Ill.), that would set a number of restrictions on overseas firms that need H-1B visas to deliver their services.

In an interview on NDTV (New Delhi Television Ltd.), Clinton was asked about the concerns of India's business community by reporter Barkha Dutt. (Excerpt begins at the 8:50 minute mark.)

"Outsourcing is such a big issue for the Indian business community. We all remember President Obama's great metaphor of 'say yes to Buffalo, no to Bangalore' -- is this an unavoidable protectionism given the global economic meltdown?" asked Dutt.

"I think it's a friendly competition," said Clinton, who went on to explain that any country "is going to want to make sure we have enough jobs for our people. What President Obama has said is we do not want a return to protectionism."

"So we have to figure out how we are going to work together," said Clinton. "Outsourcing is a concern for many communities and businesses in my country, so how we handle that is something that we're very focused on doing in a way that doesn't disrupt the great flow of trade and services that go between our countries."

The agreement that the U.S. signed in India will be taken up by what is being called the High Technology Cooperation Dialog.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135724/Clinton_in_India_says_outsourcing_is_a_concern_for_many_

[depakid]

49. Yet another issue where Nader was right: Not a dimes worth of difference between the parties...

[mule_train]

50. Obama was right with his "Clinton (D-Punjab) " memo

and he was wrong when he picked her

eat a snickers bar, hillary, do ANYTHING besides sellout jobs to India

[mule_train]

51. she does this because people tollerate it

of course, many do NOT - but too many do

if enough people called for her resignation when she as secretary of state represented other nations BEFORE us, she'd have to step down or stop doing this