Have we suffered from Clintonomics or Boomernomics?
U.S. industry chose to become reliant on China, but for a reason: to do so was encouraged by the U.S. government. The government could have kept tariff rates high (by revoking Most Favored Nation, or MFN, status) with China, but it chose instead to tilt the playing field favorably (with low tariffs) for China, in order to attain the wet dream of the multinational conglomerate corporations: low wage rates as found in the third world under communists, dictators, tyrants, and thugs.
In fact, some U.S. businesses would say they had no choice. The low tariff rates were a feature of the playing field for all U.S. businesses. However, the benefits went to the largest producers — the U.S. small and mid-size businesses were actually against the China “free trade” deal, signed by former U.S. President Bill Clinton in 1999. Small, mid-size, and socially responsible businesses (those with a conscience) were actually hurt by being thrown into competition with China’s near-slave labor.
That is to say, the measure to grant “PNTR” status to China (akin to permanent MFN) was, in the lexicon of Washington, “regressive.” So regressive that medium-size businesses opposed it, along with 79% of the public in a poll conducted at the time, in 2000 as the measure was considered by Congress.
The reliance on China was “a hasty rush to Maoism,” as I call it, due to an eagerness of Bill Clinton to pander and please “the big boys” — and, a failure to analyze the issue with an accurate understanding of trade deficits. In America, jobs left, wages stagnated, the dollar fell, and inflationary pressures mounted as the trade deficit grew unsustainably.
If the new U.S. President Barack Obama reverses this predicament, then it can be called Clintonomics. Conversely, if Obama keeps it “steady as she goes,” and has a policy to “stay the curse,” then I have been accurate as I nicknamed it Boomernomics in 2001.
Obama reveals weak situational awareness
During the current economic meltdown, myself and dissident presidential candidates like Ron Paul (R-TX), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) have been saying that “you can’t re-inflate the bubble.” After a bubble has burst, it is like spilt milk, or toothpaste that will not go back in the tube. Many of the administration, cognoscenti, or establishment observers would agree that we have been through a bubble in the housing market. Falling home prices marked the end of that bubble.
However, those same talking heads are oblivious to wider realities. What burst is not just a housing bubble. We are in the presence of a burst bubble, a broken paradigm, and a discredited globalization. The talking heads are mostly in denial about my second and third points, the broken paradigm and the discredited globalization.
They are laughably out of touch if they think that a “fix” to the economy will bring back the old times and their old ways.
These oblivious, laughable talking heads speak as if they can (1.) re-inflate the bubble; (2.) scotch tape the paradigm; and (3.) simply continue cheerleading for globalization.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently visited China and, reflecting policy from the Obama administration, displayed befuddlement and weakness that should have left China’s Communist Party rolling on the floor laughing. (Just as her husband, Bill Clinton, in 1999 offered them a trade deal that should have found Communists laughing all the way to the bank.) What did she say in China? She said—
“We have to incur more debt….to continue to buy Chinese products.”
So, that’s her (and Obama’s) plan. Incur more debt; buy more Chinese products. The only thing that’s missing in this paradigm is sustainability. In a state of economic health, one produces more than one consumes. That’s true for people, businesses, and countries. But, it’s not true under “Clintonomics,” or as I’ve called it “Boomernomics.” That now-discredited paradigm is a game of pretend or make believe. Pretend that we can consume more than we actually produce. Simply borrow money to cover the difference.
It’s no more sustainable for the USA than it is for your family. To live on credit simply invites the day when one becomes “maxed out.”
This examination reveals that our current economic downturn has roots beyond the housing bubble. During the same time as that bubble, America’s productive economy was hollowed out by the practice of offshoring productive jobs.
Offshoring has decimated the manufacturing sector of our economy. It’s like the industrial revolution was shifted into reverse. Offshoring is a bad thing, and Clintonomics can be thought of as a crime against the American worker.
Meanwhile, there are Communists who were laughing all the way to the bank. —If someone gave you a quarter trillion dollars per year, you too could have your own army, navy, air force, and space program. U.S. trade dollars have paid for China’s military buildup.
As a result, Clintonomics is more than a crime against the American worker. It is also tantamount to treason against the United States itself. I say, prosecute Clinton!
—And of course, fix the problem. For what should be done about China trade policy, I refer readers to my interview on the Digging to China program of NTD TV. See it on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De47i4oo9Dc
