A follow up on Obama's tariff decision. This is about the most scathing opinion piece that I've seen come out of the Economist on Obama. They basically cite that their approval of him was based upon what they believe were economic centrists that surrounded him, but now that he has shown his willingness to cater to such an insignificant portion of his base, they're genuinely worried (I can almost see Bud-D mouth "told you so"). I honestly wasn't willing to believe that supporting unions was the primary reason for this action. When it first occured I discussed it with some of my more liberal minded friends and even they thought it wasn't the case and that it would be idiotic for him to do it. But the growing consensus is that it is the case.
I think the second economist article boils this issue down beyond the hype surrounding it. This isn't the massive rise of tariffs that the US imposed after the start of the Great Depression (which most attribute to the perpetuation of the Depression), just one tariff on a small good employing an insignificant amount of workers in the states. None the less, it has the WTO worried. Especially after what pretext this will give other countries:
Mr Obama’s imposition of tariffs will tempt more industries and unions to seek similar relief, and he will have to decide whether this decision is a template or an exception. Other countries, fearing a wave of diverted Chinese imports, could copy America’s action. After Mr Bush raised steel tariffs in 2002, half a dozen other countries followed. Under the terms on which China entered the WTO, others can impose safeguards simply because America has (from Economist Sept 17th 09, "Playing with Fire")
I guess we will have to wait and see whether more Union affiliated industries follow suit with the United Steelworkers and try to do their best to make goods more expensive in America. Honestly, we can't blame them; they finally got a real leftist in office, it would be foolish of them not to press their advantage.
Lets see how the G-20 meeting goes (starting on ToeJam's B-Day)...
Off the cuff, but I think it's interesting:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.gallup.com/poll/123101/Americans-Likely-Say-Government-Doing-Too-Much.aspx
You've just got to wonder about these Economist guys: "This newspaper endorsed Mr Obama at last year’s election (see article) in part because he had surrounded himself with enough intelligent centrists." How could anyone halfway intelligent make that kind of statement? Obama's going to contradict everything he has stood for prior to becoming president? It of course could be possible, but betting on it is for idiots (eg The Economist).
ReplyDeleteThe article, sensibly, points out the benefits of Globalization: "America is needed to lead. The global trading system has many enemies, but in recent times the man in the White House could be counted as its main champion. As the driver of the world’s great opening, America has gained hugely in terms of power and prestige, but the extraordinary burst of growth that globalisation has triggered has also lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty over the past few decades and brought lower prices to consumers everywhere. " This is a true statement, and of course is central to The Economist's point of view, but, to think that Obama is a big fan of this and ready to be its chief cheerleader is again foolhardy. He, and most of his supporters consider this anathema (see Jeff's last article or my Community Organizer article). He will mouth free-trade statements, but it should be obvious that he's only doing it for perception's sake, not because he actually believes in it.
But, getting back to your point, I agree, this is a knife-edge issue for Obama. If the economy isn't turned around he is sunk. Starting trade wars isn't going to help. The Left is pushing everything at once, I think torn between overplaying their hand, or thinking that this will be their only chance to get their pet (Socialist) policies passed. I think they're banking on the resiliency inherent in America and the globalized economy to pull us out of the economic funk in spite of their actions. It's a gamble, and probably for them, a gamble worth taking.
The man who writes this "It is this world, a world where cruise ships throw away more food in a day than most residents of Port-au-Prince see in a year, where white folks' greed runs a world in need, apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another hemisphere…That's the world! On which hope sits!" is to be counted on to cheerlead the Global Economy? Again, anyone who counts on that...
ReplyDeleteThey're stating what needs to happen, the president needs to be the prime driver for the world economy, not that they think Obama will enthusiastically do it. That's probably why they wrote the opinion piece and article in the first place. This is a delicate issue and any push that they can provide is welcome. In addition, drawing attention to this issue and not letting it sink below the radar is the exact type of coverage that is necessary to insure that Obama isn't able to destroy everything.
ReplyDeletePlus, as far as Economics is concerned, I doubt there's any better publication in the world. Probably because they're British.
ohh, and instead of mouthing "told you so" Bud-D just published it. Either way, an accurate prediction :)
ReplyDeleteYeah, they are a good magazine. I do think they have too much European PC wishful thinking though.
ReplyDeleteAnd, they endorsed Obama. For a magazine who is all about the Global Economy, that indicates naivete.
On Bud-D's point, "But, getting back to your point, I agree, this is a knife-edge issue for Obama. If the economy isn't turned around he is sunk. Starting trade wars isn't going to help. The Left is pushing everything at once, I think torn between overplaying their hand, or thinking that this will be their only chance to get their pet (Socialist) policies passed."
ReplyDeleteObama has said that he is willingly to put his agenda above having a second term in office. He would rather be know as a great one term president as opposed to a lame duck two term president. Maybe he needs the support of the unions and the hard left to pass his domestic agenda. So this might explain the tariffs and the wavering on more troops in Afghanistan.
I don't know how people are to hope that Obama is going to be the driver of the world economy or the domestic economy. He has an agenda of transforming America and he is willingly to do it at any cost and to use the economic situation to its full advantage. If he really wanted a booming economy, Obama would not be doing close to anything that he is doing. It is not about the economy--it is about reshaping America and its place in the world as he see fits. If it means hurting the global economy to gain support for his domestic agenda, then so be it.
What impact would it have on America's economy if China decided not to keep buying our debt or to redeem its cash holdings that they have in cash? I don't remember the numbers but they are quit high.
I don't know much about the global economy, but one aspect I find interesting is that the world wealth is being transferred to developing countries as a natural course of things, or purposeful. The purpose of Cap and Trade is to spread the wealth around, as many people who support it have stated. The EM is being used to achieve this also--preventing America from using its own resources while allowing other countries to come and take ours right under our nose, the China buying up Canadian oil resources. Hurting America's economy by imposing environmental regulations that hurt industry while other nations don't have to. There are other examples, but the main point is that there seems to be an intentional purpose on the part of our government policy to build the world up at the expense of America. So I wonder if this would play into this somehow or not?
So is Obama doing this stuff just for votes or favors he owes? Is he helping out industries purely because his Commi buddies need a helping hand? I feel like there was a huge group of weasels that are all on the same page of politics. They just wanted one of their own in, no matter who, and that one person would represent all of them. Obama happened to gain the most momentum and now they push and pull him around to carry out their wants and needs. I have no evidence behind this, but I don't think Obama is putting America as his motivation, rather he is helping out his homeys.
ReplyDeleteI think Obama is putting his agenda ahead of anything else. He truly wants to remake America and the world. In order for him to do that, he needs to have crises and he needs to humble America and lower its stature in the world. He needs support to push through his agenda.
ReplyDelete