Posted on 26-4-2002
The
Delusion of Free Trade
By ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, NY Times
WASHINGTON — In their eagerness to move production offshore,
the National
Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce and the
National
Federation of Independent Business all join in a chant of "free
trade, fast
track." The retailers who make a bigger profit on imported goods
cry "free
trade, fast track," and newspapers, who make money from retail
advertising,
editorialize for free trade. But these cries are not really
for making
trade free — they are for transferring power over trade to the
executive
branch and favored corporate interests. This should not be the
way economic
policy works in a democracy.
The Bush administration contends that trade agreements are passing
us by
because the president doesn't have fast track authority. This
is baloney.
During the 90's we entered into more than nearly 200 international
commercial agreements without fast track, including the Caribbean
Basin
Initiative, and agreements with sub-Saharan Africa, Jordan and
Vietnam.
Under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution it is not the
president but
Congress that shall "regulate commerce with foreign nations."
But the fix
is in. The fast track bill will be called in the Senate only
when the White
House knows it has the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture.
Debate will
therefore be limited. No one will listen to it anyway because
they'll know
the vote is fixed. Fast track will be passed, and the United
States will
continue to lose business.
This failure to protect American workers is of relatively recent
vintage.
Since American independence, controls on trade gave government
a way to
shelter industries from foreign competition so they could grow
or
restructure. Tariffs were also an important source of government
revenue.
(There was no income tax until 1913.) President Lincoln protected
steel,
President Franklin Roosevelt instituted protectionism for agriculture
and
President Eisenhower for oil. The industrial giant of America
was built on
careful protectionism.
This changed after World War II. We were the world's leading
industrial
power. Devastated countries in Europe and Asia were given aid,
equipment
and the expertise to rebuild — and the cold war was won. Fundamental
to
this victory was the American treatment of foreign trade as
foreign aid. We
set an example by opening up the American market. But our competition
refused to follow suit. Instead, they protected their manufacturers.
As our competitors began to prosper, American managers were
learning a
different lesson from their experiences with overseas rebuilding.
They
learned that moving work overseas could save money. Labor costs
in
manufacture can be 30 percent of sales. A company that retains
its
executive offices in America but moves its production to a low-wage
area
could save as much as 20 percent in sales volume. Thus, a corporation
with
$500 million in sales could increase its pretax profits by $100
million.
Accordingly, manufacture has been leaving the United States
in droves.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, little South Carolina
has lost
53,900 textile jobs since the free trade agreement with Mexico.
Since the
1979 Tokyo Round agreements — in which fast-track authority
took on its
current form — America has lost more than four million manufacturing
jobs,
or 20 percent of our manufacturing work force.Giving fast-track
authority
to President Bush will only worsen this problem.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, hundreds of millions of people
have
entered the world's workforce ready to accept a minimal standard
of living.
In contrast, America continues to protect or raise its standard
of living
with requirements for a minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid,
safe workplaces and machinery, clean air and water, plant closing
notice
and unpaid parental leave. A plant can move to Mexico and find
a workforce
with none of these requirements and an average individual wage
that is 11
percent of the American equivalent.
Today, more than half of what we consume as a nation is imported,
and we
produce little to export. Recently I rode Acela, the fast train
from
Washington to New York that was made in Canada. Advanced technology,
which
was supposed to be the motor of domestic growth, is now imported.
We have a
deficit in the balance of trade in semiconductors, according
to the
International Trade Commission. My insurance policy is administered
in
Dublin, my light bill in Bangalore, India.
This mantra of "free trade, fast track" must not keep us from
seeing the
drawbacks of simply allowing merchants and whoever is president
determine
the shape of our nation. We have done very well for more than
two centuries
with having substantial democratic control of commercial relations.
There
is every reason to continue with it.
Years ago, Akio Morita of Sony admonished third world nations
that they had
to develop strong manufacturing sectors to become nation states.
Turning to
me, he said, "Senator, that world power that loses its manufacturing
capacity will cease to be a world power."
|