Home | About | Donate

Why Trumponomics Fails


#1

Why Trumponomics Fails

Robert Reich

When Donald Trump gave a speech last Friday at Boeing’s factory in North Charleston, South Carolina – unveiling Boeing’s new 787 “Dreamliner” – he congratulated Boeing for building the plane “right here” in South Carolina.

It’s pure fantasy. I’ll let you know why in a moment.

Trump also used the occasion to tout his “America First” economics, stating “our goal as a nation must be to rely less on imports and more on products made here in the U.S.A.” and “we want products made by our workers in our factories stamped by those four magnificent words, ‘Made in the U.S.A.’”


#2

Trillions will be spent on finding a cure for Trumponomics.

I can hear Janet yellin':

"rollin', rollin', rollin', keep those presses rollin'...QE"


#3

Trump is finding telling the 'alternative' Truth in his new politician position, easy as pie.

Lying to Americans as blatantly openly as he does, will never work for any other than the poorly educated.


#4

As Canadian PM Trudeau told the European Union this week " fear will not create any jobs".


#5

When my university first began teaching computer aided design I visited a university in Germany to see what they were doing. Not only had they been teaching CAD there for over 15 years, their classes were much more advanced because all of their students had already learned what we would be teaching in our program in high school. This article is so right on. The solution is not trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat by somehow paying high wages for unskilled jobs, but to upgrade the skill level of our work force. If German high school students can learn technical skills is it to much to expect the same from our out of work manufacturing people?


#6

Unfortunately for America today the rich do not believe in investing in education. They hire workers educated at public's expense and use them like disposable diapers. The workers are allowed a minimum of on the job learning just to get by doing the basics and then they are pushed to learn the rest on their own. Lower expenses and higher profits are the target the managers must hit irrespective of harm to the worker. Human life in America has little to no value, they are there to be exploited for profit making. Reminds one of Karl Marx's writings describing precisely the plight of the America worker today.


#7

But somehow we the taxpayers have to give back what is borrowed in our name from the elite owned banks who incidentally are also in charge of printing our money. Wow i say what a grand scheme print money out of thin air, lend it at high rates of return and collect the enormous interest. The principal will continue to balloon, not to worry about the principal pay back because it is not your money to begin with.


#8

It is no fucking accident that Trump's visit to this plant came the day after the plant workers, under enormous amounts of vicious intimidation and blackmail from both Boeing and the local politicians, (including even a local Super bowl ad targeted at them) voted down union affiliation. Strangely, the "progressive" Robert Reich never mentioned this.

And, Professor Emeritus Reich, $42K a year - for such safety-critical work - is not very good pay in this day and age - especially after the big paycheck deductions for healthcare and the crappy "you're on your own" 401K account that passes for a "retirement benefit". And, without a union, the pay and benefits will only get gradually ratcheted down with every low-paid new hire. I've been seeing this happen in coal mines ever since the near-extinction of the UMW.

Fuck Trump. Fuck the capitalists. Say no to flying. It is terrible for the environment anyway.


#9

Didn't he say that in the context of telling the Europeans to stop worrying and start getting along with Trump?

Trudeau is Trumps biggest non-USAn supporter right now. Fuck Trudeau.


#10

The author of "SuperCapitalism", Globalist Robert Reich said:

Start with Boeing’s Dreamliner itself. It’s not “made in the U.S.A..” It’s assembled in the United States. But most of it parts come from overseas. Those foreign parts total almost a third of the cost of the entire plane.

And guess who did that? Robert Reich did that, supporting NAFTA as Clinton's Secretary of Labor and claiming that cris-crossing the border looking for cheaper labor was somehow going to increase American jobs. Reich ridiculed Union Leaders who said Americans would lose jobs.

We lost millions of jobs to overseas slave labor in manufacturing and Robert Reich destroyed the environment shipping everything all over the place with massive fleets of Cargo ships burning dirty unrefined oil in nasty big boilers with no smog devices that blankets whole countries with smog as they pass.

And true to form, who does Reich blame? The victim, the worker. He's just not smart enough to put a bolt in threaded hole!

What a load of Bullchit! From the biggest con-man-author on CD! Most aerospace jobs are low-skill blue collar and don't require a college degree. Because all aircraft are different, on-the-job training is the only way anything ever gets done. Most of what Robert would teach you in his dicked-up University is all wrong anyway, and requires aerospace companies to UNtrain the new employee, which is harder than if Boeing had done the training from scratch.

Reich then claims:

So why is so much of Boeing’s Dreamliner coming from these high-wage, high-tax, high-cost places?

Because the parts made by workers in these countries are better, last longer, and are more reliable than parts made anywhere else.

What a lie! It's 100 percent untrue that Americans can't produce landing gear parts, horizontal stabilizers, bathroom fixtures, etc, on the B-787 Dreamliner "because the parts last longer." We do it all the time with military airplanes and aerospace weapons like drones and cruise missiles; so his claim is a lie.

The only reason parts come from overseas is that aerospace companies are forced by NAFTA, WTO etc, to allow foreigners to supply us. Can Americans make things that last? Our Boeing B-707's (KC-135's), B-52's, B-727's, B-747's etc are still in the air nearly 50 YEARS LATER! No European Airbus has ever achieved that except the B-4 version A-300, and it had to be completely rebuilt.

Aerospace companies, like Boeing, are forced to purchase parts overseas because of bullchit so-called "Free Trade Agreements" like WTO, TPP, TISA from the Clinton/Obama/Reich Globalization mob which are nothing but globalization racketeering con-men preventing American firms from hiring American workers.

Don't fall for it guys!


#11

"Trump seems utterly ignorant about global competition."

And just about everything else that a president should know about. But since most of his supporters aren't any more informed than Trump they are unable to comprehend the level of his ignorance. For example, climate change, loss of jobs to automation, Middle East foreign policy, etc.


#12

Did Clinton write nafta or was it done in the previous administration and became his job to get it through?


#13

The impetus for NAFTA began with President Ronald Reagan, who proposed a North American common market in his campaign

n 1992, NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later.

President Bill Clinton signed it into law December 8, 1993. It entered force January 1, 1994. It was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: "NAFTA Signed Into Law," History.com, December 8, 1993.)


#14

Sorry. but no trade agreement "forces" any US manufacturer to source parts out of the US.

Among the best-built or most useful things I own is an electric motor scooter made of parts, including the lithium cells - that are not available from US manufacturers at any price. My Smart electric drive is also a car of a type and quality that is not available from any US manufacturer at any price.


#15

Good Question. I believe Wall Street wrote it, and it was rubber-stamped by Clinton and his Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, who now is trying to sell his globalization nightmare to us right here on CD.

TJ


#16

Thank you for that good history of NAFTA. Our Democrats turned into Repukes and put it into action. Also, Bill Clinton's last few days in office he signed the much more damaging WTO agreement with China, and took campaign money from China (Al Gore did, that is; it was an issue he survived under investigation, IIRC.)


#17

Untrue. You are completely wrong.

The WTO has ruled that it is illegal for a government to ban a product based on the way it is produced, such as with child labor. It has also ruled that governments cannot take into account “non commercial values” such as human rights, or the behavior of companies that do business with vicious dictatorships such as Burma when making purchasing decisions.

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wto/oppose

Since parts made with slave labor are cheaper, companies are forced by WTO to buy them or else get sued or thrown out of international trade altogether by WTO. Since there's no EPA in the Orient, battery heavy metals are just dumped into waterways and landfills to poison children later.

Same with Food. It's called CODEX, and if you don't buy overseas ingredients you are sued.


#18

A couple of thoughts.

First, Reich has been pretty pro-little-guy and pro-strong-unions for a very long time, and even even if he got it wrong on NAFTA, I believe he eventually left the administration at the beginning of Clinton's second term because he kept bring up income inequality so much he knew it was getting old to others in the White House, and was prompting lots on eye-rolling.

Second, yes, we may be capable of building great things here, but 50 years ago we WERE a much more unionized nation AND factory workers were paid much better, so those things that have been flying for 50 years were built when we paid high wages for people to build things in heavily unionized factories. He's trying to HELP American workers get a better deal, and taking offense may not be the best way to help that agenda.


#19

Good points Karl,

But RR is still singing the globalization slave-labor song. He's oblivious to the damage this transporting of everything from the other side of the world does to the environment.

He's a Globalist, who still defends NAFTA.

WASHINGTON — Labor Secretary Robert Reich said Tuesday that labor unions are ""just plain wrong"" in opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canadaand predicted it would result in adding jobs to the U.S. automobile and steel industries.

Here's Robert Reich in the past and recently telling us that corporations shouldn't be taxed, nor should they provide health care for their employees:

""If I were a betting man, I would say that given the pace of growth of the Mexican automobile market over the next 15 years, I would say that more automobile jobs would be created in the United States than would be lost to Mexico,"" Reich told a group of reporters.

Much of the steel for cars sold in Mexico would be produced in the U.S., he said, adding that those in that industry should be happy with the agreement, too.

While there will be some job dislocation from the agreement, he said the number will be ""very, very small"" when compared to other causes of job losses, such as military and corporate cutbacks and technological change. The number of workers displaced from their jobs nationwide this year will rise by 300,000, to 2.2 million, he said.

Reich said he had no estimate of how many displaced jobs would be linked to the trade agreement.

The secretary said he expects some low-skilled automobile jobs to move to Mexico, but added that because of demand for cars in the U.S. ""the American automobile industry will grow substantially, and the net effect will be an increase in automobile jobs.""

Reich said he has debated the issue with union leaders and told them frankly he disagrees with them in their belief that the agreement will cause a massive job loss:

""The easiest conclusion is that there is a giant sucking sound from the south with regard to our jobs. That's just plain wrong.""

Trade liberalization in the post-World War II era led to the ""biggest increase in jobs and standard of living among the industrialized nations (in) history,"" he said. ""Trade is not bad. It is not a zero-sum game.""

Then I found this:

ROBERT REICH ON NAFTA


He writes:

Robert Reich's Blog: Hillary and Barack, Afta Nafta: It’s a shame the Democratic candidates for president feel they have to make trade – specifically NAFTA – the enemy of blue-collar workers.... NAFTA is not to blame.... When NAFTA took effect, Ohio had 990,000 manufacturing jobs. Two years later, in 1996, it had 1,300,000 manufacturing jobs. The number stayed above a million for the rest of the 1990s. Today, though, there are about 775,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio.

What happened? The economy... crashed in late 2000, and the manufacturing jobs lost in that last recession never came back... employers automated the jobs out of existence, using robots and computers... [and] shipped the jobs abroad, mostly to China – not to Mexico.

NAFTA has become a symbol for the mounting insecurities felt by blue-collar Americans. While the overall benefits from free trade far exceed the costs, and the winners from trade (including all of us consumers who get cheaper goods and services because of it) far exceed the losers, there’s a big problem: The costs fall disproportionately on the losers -- mostly blue-collar workers who get dumped because their jobs can be done more cheaply by someone abroad who’ll do it for a fraction of the American wage.... Even though the winners from free trade could theoretically compensate the losers and still come out ahead, they don’t. America doesn’t have a system for helping job losers find new jobs that pay about the same as the ones they’ve lost – regardless of whether the loss was because of trade or automation. There’s no national retraining system. Unemployment insurance reaches fewer than 40 percent of people who lose their jobs.... There's no wage insurance. Nothing....

Get me? The Dems shouldn't be redebating NAFTA. They should be debating how to help Americans adapt to a new economy in which no job is safe. Okay, so back to my initial question. The answer is HRC didn't want the Administration to move forward with NAFTA... because of its timing. She wanted her health-care plan to be voted on first...

There are other, secondary causes of declining numbers of manufacturing jobs in Ohio. The Bush budget deficits certainly don't help.

Here's a post on facebook, purportedly from him that says:

Robert Reich
February 15 ·
I used to believe in ""free trade"" agreements, until I took a hard look at the numbers. NAFTA cost U.S. workers almost 700,000 jobs. Since the Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, America's trade deficit with Korea has grown more than 80 percent, the equivalent of a loss of more than 70,000 additional U.S. jobs. Since China’s admission to the World Trade Organization, the U.S. goods trade deficit with China increased $23.9 billion (7.5 percent) to $342.6 billion.
Trade deals the fail to address currency manipulation or to effectively address labor standards -- while protecting the intellectual property of global corporate investors and the financial asset of Wall Street -- aren't even about trade, since tariffs are already very low. They're really about enhancing corporate and financial profits at the expense of American workers. That's why I urge you to tell your representatives in Washington not to give the President fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans Pacific Partnership.
What's your view?

When confronted about this disparity, he apparently gets amnesia according to the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/wp/2014/01/29/robert-reich-for-fast-track-before-he-was-against-it/

Reich supported NAFTA back in Clinton days and also a “fast-track” process. Asked about this, he e-mailed: “I pushed hard inside the Clinton administration for stronger labor and environmental side agreements to NAFTA. . . . Wish I had done more.” And “As to fast-tracking trade agreements, though, had no role.”

Ah, but some beg to differ, pointing out, among other things, a 2007 speech he gave when the Bush administration was pushing for fast-track authority, calling it “vitally important.” He said it was “the only reason that any other country would sign a trade treaty with the United States,” lest they sign on and Congress then changes it.

In response, he quipped in an e-mail: “Al, I don’t recall what I said in Tampa in 2007. I’m lucky if I remember what I said yesterday.”",1,1,http://commons.commondreams.org/t/the-revolt-against-the-ruling-class/11621/40,2015-08-04 07:10:36 UTC
The Revolt Against the Ruling Class,News & Views,-,No,"SR,

I agree with you, there's an effort by the tag team here like JJ to hack down all ""elitist Liberals"" (as they put it). But in checking into it, Robert Reich betrayed Unions terribly by pushing for NAFTA. See my post outlining it.

Of course, that set the stage for even worse so-called ""Free Trade Agreements"" destroying the environment with millions of trucks, airplanes and ships all criss-crossing the globe in search of slave labor.

An unforgivable offense, unless he is repentant about it. Reich was the Secretary of Labor assuring Unions that there would be more jobs in the US, not less (by exporting jobs to low-wage Mexico?) Crazy claim! He wrote the book ""SuperCaptialism"", praising the system and arguing for the elimination of all corporate tax! Again, please see my post in this comment section.

TJ

An interesting union perspective is here, including Chris Hedges summation of NAFTA:

Additionally, Wikipedia says about the Book Supercapitalism:

Reich rejects the notion that corporations are people and are being invested with anthropomorphic qualities. ""Corporations are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements"" (p216). He maintains that corporations cannot be blamed for ""corporate greed"", nor can they be expected to promote the common good. They are legal entities with the purpose to make profits for investors and shareholders. A corporation will do its best to thrive within the frame work that it is given, - if it does not do so it is at risk to be surpassed by the competition. Reich debunks the concept of ""corporate social responsibility"" as bogus. He maintains that it should not be the role of corporations to provide health coverage. Corporations are not people and should not be taxed, instead their investors and shareholder need to be taxed on the profits.

And SR,

Those weren't isolated sentiments by Robert Reich:

There is, undeniably, much to celebrate about the new economy. American capitalism is triumphant all over the world, and with good reason. Neo-Luddites who claim that advancing technologies will eliminate jobs & relegate most of us to poverty are wrong, even silly. Isolationists and xenophobes who want to put up the gates and reduce trade & immigration are misguided, often dangerously so. Paranoid populists who say global corporations and international capitalists are conspiring against us are deluded, possibly hallucinating. We--you and I and most Americans--are benefitting mightily from the new economy. We are reaping the gains of its new inventions, its lower prices, its fierce competition. We are profiting from the terrific deals its offering us as consumers, and to a large and growing proportion of us an investors.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/Future_of_Success_Free_Trade.htm",2,1,http://commons.commondreams.org/t/the-revolt-against-the-ruling-class/11621/44,2015-08-04


#20

The impetus for NAFTA began with President Ronald Reagan, who proposed a North American common market in his campaign

n 1992, NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later.

President Bill Clinton signed it into law December 8, 1993. It entered force January 1, 1994. It was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: "NAFTA Signed Into Law," History.com, December 8, 1993.)