21–30 of 30 posts
It was MFN classification and the fast tracking into the WTO that enabled this result: hollowing out of American manufacturing, wage stagnation for blue collar workers resulting in economic instability which in turn had an effect on health and substance abuse. And of course “wage gap” everyone laments. People like bringing up good old Ronald Reagan, who had faults and was simplistic about the economy, but Clinton (as…
It was MFN classification and the fast tracking into the WTO that enabled this result: hollowing out of American manufacturing, wage stagnation for blue collar workers resulting in economic instability which in turn had an effect on health and substance abuse. And of course “wage gap” everyone laments. People like bringing up good old Ronald Reagan, who had faults and was simplistic about the economy, but Clinton (as…
I feel like this is very unfair. In my narrative, the Clinton administration saw the writing on the wall. Jobs would be outsourced regardless. The win-win was to get China into the global economy ASAP and retrain the displaced workers. What happened instead was that retraining budgets were unnecessarily thin because the GOP-lead congress cried "socialism" and funneled all that reduced budgetary outlay to for-profit c…
It was MFN classification and the fast tracking into the WTO that enabled this result: hollowing out of American manufacturing, wage stagnation for blue collar workers resulting in economic instability which in turn had an effect on health and substance abuse. And of course “wage gap” everyone laments. People like bringing up good old Ronald Reagan, who had faults and was simplistic about the economy, but Clinton (as…
> For instance, during the Obama administration, Mack McLarty - President Bill Clinton’s first chief of staff - made $300 million in luxury auto dealers in China after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff helped broker an introduction to key Chinese leaders. Conflict of interests doesn't begin to describe it...
1. https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/nov/11/money-to-cli...
This is an assumption that is worth inspecting. While it is true that China's technological capabilities have increased dramatically since the Clinton presidency, it's also true that their economy has improved, lifting millions of Chinese into the middle class, and their trade with the U.S. has grown dramatically.
Trade is a stabilizing influence on international relations. Our huge volume of trade with China is why Trump is having a "trade war" with China today, not a real war. Trade wars are better in every way compared to a shooting war. But a trade war can only exist between nations that share significant trade.
Is our relationship with China perfect? No. Agree with the tactics or not (I don't, personally [1]), but the Trump administration is responding to real domestic concerns about how China operates.
Is China's governance and approach to their citizens' civil rights perfect? Definitely not!
But: it is a desirable goal is grow the international economy. Doing so lifts people out of poverty, gives them a reason to seek peace, and creates beneficial large-scale effects like improving efficiency and slowing population growth.
Growing the global economy means that other nations will prosper and develop their technologies, which include military technologies. One particular deal with China--bad as it was--was not the lynchpin of nuclear detente; China had the means to wipe the U.S. off the globe the day Clinton took office.
They don't want to. That preference for mutually prosperous peace is far more important to the national security of the U.S. than the details of a particular military deal.
The article depicts the Clinton administration as having "a fear of offending China." What they actually had (and share with a large number of other people) is a belief that China does not have to lose, or be "contained", for the U.S. to keep winning. In fact, everything we know about economic growth says that the U.S. will win more if we trade productively with growing nations.
[1] IMO the TPP with the U.S. in it would have been more effective at shaping China's behavior than the current U.S. tariffs, with fewer negative side-effects in the U.S.
It was MFN classification and the fast tracking into the WTO that enabled this result: hollowing out of American manufacturing, wage stagnation for blue collar workers resulting in economic instability which in turn had an effect on health and substance abuse. And of course “wage gap” everyone laments. People like bringing up good old Ronald Reagan, who had faults and was simplistic about the economy, but Clinton (as…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those jobs were going to be outsourced either ways. There was no way the US could compete with Asian labor prices. It wasn't just the US either, it was most of the developed world.
indeed, the cheap labor source was always there, for at least a century. What changed? Cheap shipping. as in 90-99% reduction in overseas freight costs within less than two decades. blue collar workers can thank the humble intermodal shipping container and its systems integration refinement by malcolm McLean for much of their plight. oceans became lakes almost overnight.
But it didn't happen in a vacuum. Cheap shipping certainly wouldn't be possible without containerization and improvements in logistics, but the new system only made sense when scaled up to giant ships (fuel and crew size efficiency), which in turn only became feasable when ships could quickly/easily onload and offload at multiple ports in multiple countries, without quarantine/ security/ customs delays at each port.
You could say it's a chicken & egg situation, but the scale of the containerization age only began to make sense in the context of relaxed regulation and efficient import/export policy.
Also, it wasn't a case of non-existant regulation racing to catch up with a booming new technology (ala the internet or Uber/Lyft). International trade regulation has been around since before, well, nations were even a thing. It's the original bureaucracy. The regulation had to be addressed first, or at least simultaneously. Which to me is as impressive, if not moreso- cutting through a worldwide rats nest of bureaucratic red tape in so little time. (Regardless of if you agree with the resulting policy.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
indeed, the cheap labor source was always there, for at least a century. What changed? Cheap shipping. as in 90-99% reduction in overseas freight costs within less than two decades. blue collar workers can thank the humble intermodal shipping container and its systems integration refinement by malcolm McLean for much of their plight. oceans became lakes almost overnight.
Intermodal containerization is one of the most underrated and underappreciated technologies of our civilization. I'm not saying it's unappreciated, but people don't realize the extent that it's changed the world. But it didn't happen in a vacuum. Cheap shipping certainly wouldn't be possible without containerization and improvements in logistics, but the new system only made sense when scaled up to giant ships (fuel…
https://pandapawdragonclaw.blog/2019/08/23/empty-trains-on-t...
I believe there was a HN discussion on the article when it came out.
This piece assumes and depends on a fear of China. That is, it takes for granted that enabling the economic success of China is necessarily to the detriment of the U.S. This is an assumption that is worth inspecting. While it is true that China's technological capabilities have increased dramatically since the Clinton presidency, it's also true that their economy has improved, lifting millions of Chinese into the mid…