02/15/06 -- -- Now that the U.S. trade deficit for 2005
has come in at $726 billion, the fourth straight all-time
record, a question arises.
What constitutes failure for a free-trade policy? Or is
there no such thing? Is free trade simply right no matter
the results?
Last year, the United States ran a $202 billion trade
deficit with China, the largest ever between two nations. We
ran all-time record trade deficits with OPEC, the European
Union, Japan, Canada and Latin America. The $50 billion
deficit with Mexico was the largest since NAFTA passed and
also the largest in history.
When NAFTA was up for a vote in 1993, the Clintonites and
their GOP fellow-travelers said it would grow our trade
surplus, raise Mexico's standard of living and reduce
illegal immigration.
None of this happened. Indeed, the opposite occurred.
Mexico's standard of living is lower than it was in 1993,
the U.S. trade surplus has vanished, and America is being
invaded. Mexico is now the primary source of narcotics
entering the United States.
Again, when can we say a free-trade policy has failed?
The Bushites point proudly to 4.6 million jobs created since
May 2003, a 4.7 percent unemployment rate and low inflation.
Unfortunately, conservative columnist Paul Craig Roberts and
analysts Charles McMillion and Ed Rubenstein have taken a
close look at the figures and discovered that the foundation
of the Bush prosperity rests on rotten timber.
The entire job increase since 2001 has been in the service
sector – credit intermediation, health care, social
assistance, waiters, waitresses, bartenders, etc. – and
state and local government.
But, from January 2001 to January 2006, the United States
lost 2.9 million manufacturing jobs, 17 percent of all we
had. Over the past five years, we have suffered a net loss
in goods-producing jobs.
"The decline in some manufacturing sectors has more in
common with a country undergoing saturation bombing than
with a super-economy that is 'the envy of the world,'"
writes Roberts.
Communications equipment lost 43 percent of its workforce.
Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37 percent ...
The workforce in computers and electronic products declined
30 percent. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25
percent of its workforce.
How did this happen? Imports. The U.S. trade deficit in
advanced technology jobs in 2005 hit an all-time high.
As for the "knowledge industry" jobs that were going to
replace blue-collar jobs, it's not happening. The
information sector lost 17 percent of all its jobs over the
last five years.
In the same half-decade, the U.S. economy created only
70,000 net new jobs in architecture and engineering, while
hundreds of thousands of American engineers remain
unemployed.
If we go back to when Clinton left office, one finds that,
in five years, the United States has created a net of only
1,054,000 private-sector jobs, while government added 1.1
million. But as many new private sector jobs are not
full-time, McMillion reports, "the country ended 2005 with
fewer private sector hours worked than it had in January
2001."
This is an economic triumph?
Had the United States not created the 1.4 million new jobs
it did in health care since January 2001, we would have
nearly half a million fewer private-sector jobs than when
Bush first took the oath.
Ed Rubenstein of ESR Research Economic Consultants looks at
the wage and employment figures and discovers why, though
the Bushites were touting historic progress, 55 percent of
the American people in a January poll rated the Bush economy
only "fair" or "poor."
Not only was 2005's growth of 2 million jobs a gain of only
1.5 percent, anemic compared to the average 3.5 percent at
this stage of other recoveries, the big jobs gains are going
to immigrants.
Non-Hispanic whites, over 70 percent of the labor force, saw
only a 1 percent employment increase in 2005. Hispanics,
half of whom are foreign born, saw a 4.7 percent increase.
As Hispanics will work for less in hospitals and hospices,
and as waiters and waitresses, they are getting the new
jobs.
But are not wages rising? Nope. When inflation is factored
in, the Economic Policy Institute reports, "real wages fell
by 0.5 percent over the last 12 months after falling 0.7
percent the previous 12 months."
If one looks at labor force participation – what share of
the 227 million potential workers in America have jobs – it
has fallen since 2002 for whites, blacks and Hispanics
alike. Non-Hispanic whites are down to 63.4 percent, but
black Americans have fallen to 57.7 percent.
What is going on? Hispanic immigrants are crowding out black
Americans in the unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled job
market. And millions of our better jobs are being lost to
imports and outsourcing.
The affluent free-traders, whose wealth resides in stocks in
global companies, are enriching themselves at the expense of
their fellow citizens and sacrificing the American worker on
the altar of the Global Economy.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for research and
educational purposes. DaScribbler has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is DaScribbler endorsed or sponsored by the
originator.)