Duh!!! Protectionism is rising because globalization has hurt American workers.

[Zalatix]

Free trade advocates keep bailing out water from their lifeboat but they won't recognize the cannon hole that's been blown through it: globalization has destroyed job stability, stagnated wages, and has kept job growth LAGGING BEHIND population growth.

Free trade advocates can't bring themselves to realize that the longer globalization goes, the more spectacular its collapse will be. It is Ouroboros.

Protectionism isn't a nationalist or racist response. It is an immune system response to a clear and present economic pathogen. Globalization cannot sustain itself - by nature it is a polluting influence that cannot survive without keeping third world nations impoverished (see: the US telling Haiti not to raise its minimum wage) while moving jobs out of more economically stable nations, thereby destabilizing them. Globalization must destabilize the healthy and keeps the weak perpetually weak. If weak nations become strong then there's no reason for globalization: because then it costs too much to continue.

Globalization holds no benefits for American workers. The trade deficit is itself a shining example of what is inherently wrong with the system. No amount of reform can make this deficit go away. And that trade deficit is the world's anti-American sentiment given voice: American workers are being driven out of the global economy, and even being driven out of their own economy. Free traders know this, and they would resort to anything to keep this fact from being discussed.

Unfortunately for them, Americans know they are being pushed out of the global and even domestic economy. Which is why the great modern Ouroboros is unsure of whether it will be put down mercifully by protectionism, or whether it will be allowed to keep imploding.

Oh yes, free traders, globalism is very much imploding. It is headed for a disastrous end by its own hand, or by the hand of Protectionism. There is no scenario that sees globalism coming to a good end. The only choices left are whether it will collapse disastrously on its own, or whether it will be euthanized by the electorate. Globalization has passed that point of no return. Self-destruction or economic euthanasia. What will it be?


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/a_new_deal_for_globalization.html

Of workers in seven educational categories -- high school dropout, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, nonprofessional master's, Ph.D., and M.B.A./J.D./M.D. -- only those in the last two categories, with doctorates or professional graduate degrees, experienced any growth in mean real money earnings between 2000 and 2005. Workers in these two categories comprised only 3.4 percent of the labor force in 2005, meaning that more than 96 percent of U.S. workers are in educational groups for which average money earnings have fallen. In contrast to in earlier decades, since 2000 even college graduates and those with nonprofessional master's degrees -- 29 percent of workers in 2005 -- suffered declines in mean real money earnings.

In short: remember how everyone said Americans need more skills and education? Well, those who got that, are benefiting less and less. Because of globalization, Americans are competing harder than anyone in the world for a ever-shrinking pool of jobs and decreasing wages, relative to the population.

The problem is not how much education Americans get. The problem is that only 1% of Americans can ever be in the 99th percentile, period, no matter how much education the country gets. The problem is that the gains from globalization are only going to 1% of Americans. Everyone else is getting the shaft.

If every American had a PhD in a high-tech field, there would still only be 1% of Americans whose incomes would rise as a result of globalization. Before globalization matured in the 1980s, this was not the case. Free traders don't ever want to talk about that. No matter how much you bring it up, they will not discuss it. It is the smoking gun of globalization, the shining evidence of its culpability in the decline of America's working class.

In short, TAA is inappropriately designed to address the protectionist drift. The labor-market concern driving this drift is not confined to the problem of how to reemploy particular workers in particular sectors facing import competition. Because the pressures of globalization are spread economy-wide via domestic labor-market competition, there is concern about income and job security among workers employed in all sectors.

In short: globalization displaces Americans from manufacturing, and these displaced workers are trying to get into other fields, all of which are becoming overcrowded with applicants. Trade adjustment assistance doesn't work because of one basic problem: there are not enough jobs to go around. Ever played musical chairs? It's like that.

If there hadn't been globalization, domestic jobs would not have left the country, and this would not have happened.

If the United States today undertook the goal of boosting its college-graduate share of the work force to 50 percent, the graduation of that median American worker would, if the rate of past efforts are any indication, not come until about 2047. And even this far-off date might be too optimistic. In the past generation, the rate of increase in the educational attainment of U.S. natives has slowed from its 1960s and 1970s pace, in part because college-completion rates have stalled. Rising income inequality may itself be playing a role here. Since 1988, 74 percent of American students at the 146 top U.S. colleges have come from the highest socioeconomic quartile, compared with just 3 percent from the lowest quartile. Moreover, even college graduates and holders of nonprofessional master's degrees have experienced falling mean real money earnings since 2000. If this trend continues, even completing college will not assuage the concerns behind rising protectionism.

In short: globalization has forced more people to get college degrees, and now there are a glut of college graduates, which is driving their wages down by right of increased supply overwhelming employer demand.

If there hadn't been globalization, domestic jobs would not have left the country, and this would not have happened.

A New Deal for globalization would combine further trade and investment liberalization with eliminating the full payroll tax for all workers earning below the national median. In 2005, the median total money earnings of all workers was $32,140, and there were about 67 million workers at or below this level. Assuming a mean labor income for this group of about $25,000, these 67 million workers would receive a tax cut of about $3,800 each. Because the economic burden of this tax falls largely on workers, this tax cut would be a direct gain in after-tax real income for them. With a total price tag of about $256 billion, the proposal could be paid for by raising the cap of $94,200, raising payroll tax rates (for progressivity, rates could escalate as they do with the income tax), or some combination of the two. This is, of course, only an outline of the needed policy reform, and there would be many implementation details to address. For example, rather than a single on-off point for this tax cut, a phase-in of it (like with the earned-income tax credit) would avoid incentive-distorting jumps in effective tax rates.

This does absolutely nothing for people who don't have a job, and is a perfect explanation for why there is nothing that can be done to save Globalism.

Nothing can be done. Even invoking Franklin Delano "I stopped Smoot/Hawley" Roosevelt is useless against reality: globalism is going to die, and it is going to die quite painfully, if not by protectionism then by a total economic collapse either because of the ongoing pattern of mass impoverishment, or the collapse of the US Dollar.

Invoking FDR cannot save Globalism. Globalization is a WEAPON to use against America's working class, and nothing more. The question that free traders have left to deal with is: which awful, painful way do they want this anti-American weapon to die? All that is left is Protectionism now, or a devastating collapse later. That's it and that's all that's left for Globalism to choose, folks.

[Armstead]

1. Recommending -- Some of us have been saying this for years but falling on deaf ears

It woukld be nice if people finally realize what a scam it is before it is too late (if its not too late already)

[Zalatix]

3. But... nationalism!!!

They'll howl that canard until the very day that the economy itself collapses so badly even FDR Reincarnated couldn't save us... or until the dollar itself loses its status as the reserve currency.

[silvershadow]

2. I don't even like that word, "protectionism". It just sounds so much like

a right wing meme. To me it is just good, old-fashioned economic patriotism. DU rec.

[Zalatix]

4. Patriotism! Damn! The "I've got my United Federation of Planets ID card right here" crowd HATES

that word!

I know at least 2 people who'll call you on that word.

When they show up, be sure to ask them why they, as upstanding citizens of the world, have no problem with America pressuring Haiti not to raise the minimum wage for their garment workers...

[silvershadow]

5. I will. I don't see them having a defense. Our trade policies leave a lot to be desired.

(and that is an understatement).

[Nye Bevan]

6. Attacking President Obama's policies the day before the election?

Not the greatest timing.

[rhett o rick]

7. Will you be willing to discuss these policies after the election? nm

[Zalatix]

14. Notice how no answer was given to your question?

[rhett o rick]

16. Yes. What some will do to avoid discussing issues. nm

[Zalatix]

9. Okay, we've crossed into the Twilight Zone with your accusation.

President Obama has slapped tariffs on China and has kicked their ass in WTO disputes.

So upon what basis do you accuse me of attacking Obama's policies? Even Rod Serling is of better health than your argument.

[Nye Bevan]

10. "Obama gets win as Congress passes free-trade agreements"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-gets-win-as-congress-passes-free-trade-agreements/2011/10/12/gIQAGHeFgL_story.html

The South Korea deal has the potential to create as many as 280,000 American jobs, according to a recent assessment by the staff of the U.S. International Trade Commission, and to boost exports by more than $12 billion. Several major labor unions have warned that any gains will come at the cost of layoffs among American workers because of heightened competition from South Korean imports.

The South Korea deal is widely hailed as the most consequential trade pact since the North American Free Trade Agreement was ratified in 1994.

The House approved all three deals and was quickly followed by the Senate. Final approval of the agreements represents a victory for the Obama administration and congressional leaders in both parties, who have touted the trade pacts as a means to jump-start the flagging economy without additional government spending. Ratification of the agreements holds particular importance for President Obama, who has set a goal of doubling U.S. exports by 2015 and is facing a tough bid for reelection with unemployment stuck at 9.1 percent.

“I look forward to signing these agreements,” Obama said late Wednesday. He hailed passage as “a major win for American workers and businesses.”

[Zalatix]

11. Okay, and?

Obama is REVERSING the damage done by globalization. You still have no case. You've always put up lame arguments in favor of destroying American jobs but in this case, accusing me of opposing Obama is WAY over the line.

I doubt you'll find anyone willing to sign onto that nonsense.

[Nye Bevan]

12. OK. Let me just say that I am very happy with Obama's policies on trade.

I love that he has kept NAFTA in place, has not attempted to "re-negotiate" NAFTA, and has signed multiple other free trade agreements in the face of union opposition. I also think that Mitt Romney's vow to "crack down" on China by labeling it a "currency manipulator" on Day 1 of his presidency is nonsense.

If you also like Obama's policies on trade, then great, sorry if I misunderstood you. I guess Obama truly is a uniter.

[Zalatix]

13. This is all an attempt on your part to distract the discussion from the fact that

globalism is very much doomed.

[Nye Bevan]

15. Gotcha. Go Obama! (nt)

[rhett o rick]

8. The "globalists" have the power. This will just have to play out until Americans are hurting

soo bad they will do something.