George Bush, Protectionist by Patrick J. Buchanan (more by this author) Posted 12/26/2008 ET
"I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," President Bush told CNN, defending his offer of $17 billion in loans to the Big Three "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."
Thus did Bush concede that protectionism, if a critical U.S. industry is in peril, must trump free-trade ideology. For in offering the bailout to GM, Ford and Chrysler, Bush, by omission, excluded BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Nissan and Hyundai -- though all operate auto plants here in the United States and all are feeling the same sales slump.
Indeed, Toyota claims losses for the first time in 70 years -- though how Toyota's management was able to keep sales up in 1945, when Gen. Curtis LeMay's B-29s were conducting their nightly visits, escapes me.
Bush may believe he has sinned against free-market principles, but he is following the path of his great free-market predecessor. Ronald Reagan, too, was not prepared to see Japan take down the U.S. auto industry, or steel industry, or computer chip industry, or Harley-Davidson.
Believing Japan was dumping to destroy U.S. companies, Reagan put patriotism before ideology and imposed quotas on Japanese imports. He, too, was castigated by the same commentariat that is berating Bush.
Vice President Cheney, too, has endorsed the bailout of Detroit. Of the senators who voted to pull the plug on General Motors, Cheney is said to have remarked, "It's Herbert Hoover time" up there in the GOP caucus
Averting Chapter 11 for GM, which could lead to liquidation of the greatest manufacturing company in U.S. history -- cutting America out of the premier consumer market of the 21st century -- makes sense not only from the standpoint of politics, but economics, as well.
For other nations, as The Washington Post reports, are far ahead of Bush in sheltering their industries and protecting their markets:
"Moving to shield battered domestic manufacturers from foreign imports, Indonesia is slapping restrictions on at least 500 products this month, demanding special licenses and new fees on imports. Russia is hiking tariffs on imported cars, poultry and pork. France is launching a state fund to protect French companies from foreign takeovers. Officials in Argentina and Brazil are seeking to raise tariffs on products, from imported wine and textiles to leather goods and peaches, according to the World Trade Organization."
India has levied a 20 percent duty on soybeans to cut imports and protect her farmers. The United States has just filed charges with the World Trade Organization against China for "unfair support of its export industry -- including the award of cash grants, rebates and preferential loans to exporters."
Awfully late in the game, Bush seems to have awakened to an ancient reality. When the tough times come, nations protect their own interests first, free trade be damned.
"Country first," as the John McCain slogan ran.
Libertarians of the Milton Friedman school may be unforgiving of Bush. But what has their free-trade globalism given us, but $5 trillion in trade deficits since Bush 1 and a new dependency on foreigners for the necessities of our national life and the loans to pay for them?
Were all the Playstations and Priuses worth it?
By traditional free-trade theory, a nation should import what it does not produce from the nations that produce it most cheaply.
But in 1946, Japan produced almost no steel, no TVs and no cars. Instead of buying them from America, Tokyo subsidized its own steel, TV and auto industries for decades, and protected their market. Now, as Sony did to Philco and Dumont, Toyota, Honda and Nissan are taking down Ford, GM and Chrysler. Were the Japanese foolish to subsidize their industries and protect their market? Were we wise to let our TV industry be taken down, and watch our auto and steel industries driven to death's door?
To 1970, Boeing, Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas produced almost all of the world's jetliners. But rather than rely in perpetuity on Americans for passenger planes, Britain, France, Germany and Spain subsidized a socialist cartel, Airbus, that did not make a profit for 25 years and sold its planes for less than it cost to build them.
That trampled all over free-trade theory, but it did kill Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas and almost killed Boeing.
Were the Europeans foolish to create an aircraft industry and subsidize the destruction of Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas? Or were they wise to sacrifice today to capture the world's aircraft market of tomorrow?
Like Prohibition in Hoover's phrase, globalism is "an experiment, noble in purpose, that has failed."
As we have learned, at a cost of $10 trillion in wealth wiped out on Wall Street, the nations of the future are not the consumer nations that pile up debt as they live on imports, but the producer nations that save and sacrifice and make the things the world wants.
With the tax-and-trade policies of the Old Republican Party that made America first by putting Americans first, we can be that nation again.
As for President Bush, welcome to the Protectionists Club, sir.
Is there pure free trade internationally????? The only 'pure free trade' that could possibly exist would be those illegal trades---that function off pure supply/demand...without regard........human traffiking, drugs, money etc........
a country's will directs how their 'free trade' shall procede........
as for greed in a 'free trade' system,,,,,they should have swift and painful consequences.... as for greed in a 'true free trade' system......to kill and survival of the fittest.......
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Well, it appears that foreign countried didn't destroy America...they were just smarter and had more insight and vision in economics. While this country was busy trying to shove our lifestyles down the foreign countries throats, they were clearly a quick study and shoved it right back at us!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Other countries took care of their people first something the USA should have been doing instead of allowing all the good jobs to move out of the country.
Other countries took care of their people first something the USA should have been doing instead of allowing all the good jobs to move out of the country.
Yeah, China, Russia, India, are real humanitarian role models. We should learn from them, seeing how people are flooding their boarders for citizenship. I'm booking a flight to India right now, so I can get a job as a Dell Computer service hotline rep.
The new American mentality of, America as a Country should take care of Americans is not what America was founded on. America was about Americans taking care of themselves without interference of a big centralized government. It was about the freedom for individuals to govern themselves and to decide what is best for them. Not the government telling us what is best for us. Example: the soda tax, cigarette tax.
This concept of making laws to detour what legislators deem to be unhealthy behavior is mind blowing. And to talk to people who actually believe this legislation that punishes this behavior as good, is even more disturbing. Slowly restricting our freedoms under the guise of "it's what's best for you"
I know I rambled off topic, but I just get annoyed when I hear people say that our country, meaning our government, should be more like other nations. The fact is, Americans took care of Americans better without this big government welfare state we now live in. This country was populated by those who left the countries with large centralized governments that you so admire, to form the most powerful nation on earth. How did this happen? It's because we attracted the best and brightest the world had to offer, and allowed them to prosper and maximize the individual potential. Now with the our modern day big government over regulated, welfare image, we attract the worst and the dumbest, who are looking for a free handout.
Foreign Countries didn't destroy American Industry, the death of the American spirit of "keep government off my back" has changed to "please help me government". We've been lulled into believing that we must look to the government for our solution when what really needs to happen that government needs to step back and allow American ingenuity to once again prosper.
The only point I was trying to make was that our wonderful government has made decisions that are very detrimental to the well being of it's citizens, not that we need more government or any hand outs from them.
Cicero is correct. BUT....after we allowed everyone to prosper and maximize their individual potential, they soon learned about greed and corruption. The immigrants came in almost 100 years ago. They were humble, hard working people with pride and love for this country and their fellow man.
A few generations later...greed and corruptness and the 'all about me' attitude crept in and...here we are!! Perhaps Karl Marx was correct, huh?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I have printed Cicero's comment #4 of this thread, I will have it framed and hang it next to Desiderata!!!!!!!!! Best comment award from me for 2008. Thanks, Cicero.
Fact is, over time, this country has changed from what it was originally. I remember hearing someone say that before the civil war, people used to say that "The United States are..." and since the civil war, we say "The United States is..." That is to say that since the civil war, we have actually lost some of our freedom. The original pact, when signing the Constitution made each colony a state (let's remember that even the soviets agreed that they had separate countries when they were the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Commonly called Soviet Union or Russia Abbr. USSR A former country of eastern Europe and northern Asia with coastlines on the Baltic and Black seas and the Arctic and Pacific oceans. It was established in December 1922 with the union of the Russian SFSR (proclaimed after the Russian Revolution of 1917) and various other soviet republics, including Belorussia and the Ukraine. In 1991 a number of consituent republics declared their independence, and the USSR was officially dissolved on December 31, 1991. Moscow was the capital.
Something that the United States of America was originally set up to allow which will never happen again.
Cicero is correct. BUT....after we allowed everyone to prosper and maximize their individual potential, they soon learned about greed and corruption. The immigrants came in almost 100 years ago. They were humble, hard working people with pride and love for this country and their fellow man.
A few generations later...greed and corruptness and the 'all about me' attitude crept in and...here we are!! Perhaps Karl Marx was correct, huh?
I guess I would recommend asking a Cuban defector, or somebody from the ex- Soviet Union, or maybe a North Korean, if Communism is all that Karl promised it would be. Greed and corruption exist in Communist countries, the only difference is, it only exist for those in government. Those who live outside of government live by the means that government dictates, while those in government live high on the hog. Great system. Sounds like New York State doesn't it?
I would much rather lose the money I lost in my retirement, my job, and my house, due to the unchecked greed in the capitalist free markets, rather than lose those freedoms that I continue to watch erode away due to the ever expanding and intrusive government.
We all had a choice of where to put our money, whether it be in stocks, bonds, money markets, real estate, or under your mattress, we still had choices. Did Americans get caught up in the greed? YES! But if the so-called "economic crisis" were allowed to correct itself through the creative destruction of capital markets, things would have turned out just fine, and it would have been a lesson learned for the American people. Would people have suffered hardship? YES! In a capitalist system, you have winners and you have losers. With these bailouts, we are conditioning future American generations that there are no losers, and that conformity and common good is more important that your individual pursuit of happiness. Life IS all about ME, and MY family, and about those who I CHOOSE to be important to me. Not for the government to TELL ME who I should be concerned about, or to put those in the community before myself by forcefully taking my money through welfare legislation. Or punishing me through excessive taxation because I like to drink soda, just because some idiot legislator thinks it's bad for me.
Goldman Sachs and these other financial institutions can only hurt me financially, again, only if I CHOOSE to put myself in a position to allow them to. With a bloated, corrupt, intrusive government like the one I see ballooning in front of my eyes, they have the power to tax me and affect every aspect of my life, creating laws restricting my personal freedoms. I have no choices, I have but one vote. They can pass these laws and enforce them using law enforcement, for whom I am forced to pay for, through more legislation, making sure I pay my taxes to pay the government agents who enforce these laws. Goldman Sachs doesn't have that power. The power they do have, is the ability to control the politicians who are elected into office, by bankrolling their campaigns. And that is the reason for these bailouts.
We are in a scary place as a country, with the mock two party system and their marriage with Corporate America, it is quite a consolidation of power. There seems to be no separation of powers and no check and balances. Each branch of Government is permeated with like minded people with both (R)'s and (D)'s after their names, holding degrees from the same ivy league colleges, and both parties bought and payed for by the same corporate millionaires.
Americans need to wake up to the charade that is going between Dems and Repubs and vote for those running on the other lines. Writing or calling your Congressmen or women doesn't work. They don't listen. Not unless you are a top tier contributor to their re-election campaign, then you have a shot.
BUT PLEASE DON'T SUGGEST COMMUNISM AS THE SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S WOES!!!! KARL MARX WAS WRONG!!!! CAPITALISM ISN'T THE DEMISE OF AMERICA, IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE, IT'S THE EVER EXPANDING AND ENCROACHING CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT THAT IS DESTROYING AMERICA.
Goldman Sachs doesn't have that power. The power they do have, is the ability to control the politicians who are elected into office, by bankrolling their campaigns. And that is the reason for these bailouts.
We are in a scary place as a country, with the mock two party system and their marriage with Corporate America, it is quite a consolidation of power. There seems to be no separation of powers and no check and balances. Each branch of Government is permeated with like minded people with both (R)'s and (D)'s after their names, holding degrees from the same ivy league colleges, and both parties bought and payed for by the same corporate millionaires.
BUT PLEASE DON'T SUGGEST COMMUNISM AS THE SOLUTION TO AMERICA'S WOES!!!! KARL MARX WAS WRONG!!!! CAPITALISM ISN'T THE DEMISE OF AMERICA, IT'S JUST THE OPPOSITE, IT'S THE EVER EXPANDING AND ENCROACHING CENTRALIZED GOVERNMENT THAT IS DESTROYING AMERICA.
I am not suggesting that Communism is the solution. I am suggesting that it may be the end result. Perhaps only with a different title. And was Karl Marx's predictions wrong? He never did say in detail 'how' Capitalism would be the demise of America. Capitalism, through greed, has now gained control over our government,(that you so articulately explained), giving 'we the people' practically no voice in our Capitalist democracy.
So what came first, the chicken or the egg? Who became greedy and power driven first....the Capitalist Corporations or the government? Or was it just a marriage made in heaven?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
YOU ARE MY NEW HERO CICERO. YOU HAVE ELOQUENTLY STATED MY EXACT FEELINGS BUT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO PUT INTO WORDS. KEEP IT UP, I LOVE HEARING MY OWN THOUGHTS
I am not suggesting that Communism is the solution. I am suggesting that it may be the end result. Perhaps only with a different title. And was Karl Marx's predictions wrong? He never did say in detail 'how' Capitalism would be the demise of America. Capitalism, through greed, has now gained control over our government,(that you so articulately explained), giving 'we the people' practically no voice in our Capitalist democracy.
So what came first, the chicken or the egg? Who became greedy and power driven first....the Capitalist Corporations or the government? Or was it just a marriage made in heaven?
This quoted article may satisfy both of our statements. Capitalist can make me disproportionately poor, Marxist can make me proportionately poor and dead.
Quoted Text
"In an almost inevitable irony," wrote John Gray in False Dawn, "Karl Marx' theory of historical inevitability has been taken up by a new breed of social engineers, ensconced in the International Monetary Fund, the US State Department, Western European governments and the editorial offices of most western newspapers." In other words, today's New World Order's "free market globalism" is merely another mutation of Marxism. It's a "red" sheep in a "blue chip" wolf's clothing. Communism was a dictatorship of the proletariat. Globalism is a dictatorship of capital. But both are dictatorships! And both ideologies have been hatched and crafted in the same mints - the boardrooms of the world's top bankers and industrialists. Both depended on corruption of the Moral Man by material means as a means of enslaving and destroying him.
At the start of the century, it was Lenin and his Bolsheviks who tried to destroy an ancient Christian culture (Russian), and who snuffed out tens of millions of human lives in the name of materialistic communism. Today, it is the multinational corporations that are the ruthless soldiers of the globalist Wall Street elite. For the time being anyway, they only fire their workers by the millions, instead of firing at them as the materialistic Marxists did to their enemies.
But do you really believe that a leopard can change its spots? If not, is there any wonder that a Wall Street boom may spell a Main Street doom?
Logged
