[ close ]


Bg1

Spread this message with Digg, Del.icio.us, Reddit, or Stumbleupon, and subscribe to the RSS Feed to track articles

Out of Afghan - Into Trade War

Published 10/23/09 Sen. Ernest F. "Fritz" Hollings - Print Article
E-mail - editor@economyincisis.org

Editor's Note: The following article was contributed by Former Senator Ernest F. “Fritz” Hollings, author of Making Government Work.



Washington is a hard learner. It took ten years and cost 58,000 lives in Vietnam to learn that you couldn’t build and destroy or secure the country and institute democracy at the same time. Now we insist on trying it in Afghanistan. A second election won’t do it. As Secretary Gates says they’ve still got the same corruption. Many in Afghanistan have yet to learn of the first election and warlords will probably vote them again. We can’t get it through our heads that we’re trying to change a culture that values tribe and religion more than freedom and democracy. Even if it works, Afghans will probably be back to their culture after we leave. After eight years, bitter-enders keep calling for the number of troops the generals ask for, but the generals say the military or number of troops can’t do it. It’s got to be done by “a willing partner.” After eight years of trying, it’s criminal to ask GIs to give their lives while we search for “a willing partner” in corruption.

We, as a people, are hard learners. Guerrilla war has checkmated nuclear, and the world has moved to economic hegemony. Capitalism, free markets, are America’s long suits. But as Henry Clay said of free trade: “It never existed … it never will.” Like world peace, free trade is an admirable goal, but it will never exist in our lifetime. Instead, we must recognize an intense Trade War that ensues.

Forty years ago, Lee Kuan Yew, the Prime Minister of Singapore and Wise Man of the East, told me how Japan was determined to take over the world economy. Lee said: “Japan teaches in its schools that the defeat in World War II was just a temporary setback. After the war, Japan launched a policy of prevailing in the world economically.” After World War II, Japan started the Trade War by closing its domestic market, subsidizing its manufacturing, selling its exports at or near cost and making up the profit in its closed market. Toyota, operating from this closed market, has now become No. 1, while General Motors, operating from an open market, is bankrupt. Six years ago, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama and I visited Singapore, and I wanted Shelby to hear Lee Kuan Yew. Sure enough, Lee received us at his apartment and, during the hour and a half visit, Lee reaffirmed what he had told me about Japan and gave me a book where he had written this. Then Lee told of the unannounced visit of Hu Jintao, the then-incoming President of China. Hu had not called on Lee or any officials, but stayed with a friend several days who took him around Singapore. When Hu left, Lee summoned the friend and asked: “What gives?” The friend told Lee that Hu wanted to see how Singapore with a diverse population and no natural resources managed to become so strong economically. Then Lee cautioned: “Now we’ll have to watch China as it takes over the world economically.”

China, with its vast population, has launched an assault in the Trade War with total control: its currency, investment, production, labor, trade – the internet, how many babies you have and your religion. With this policy of control, China in ten years has brought three hundred million of its people out of poverty into the middle class. And in the next ten years, China is on course to bring another five hundred million of its poor into the middle class. China has not only taken over U. S. markets in the Pacific, but many in Africa and now some in South America. Twenty years ago, China proved in foreign policy that it’s no longer the Sixth Fleet drawing alongside changing governments, but “it’s the economy, stupid.” After Tiananmen Square, we passed a resolution in the UN General Assembly to investigate human rights in China. China countered by going to its trade friends in Africa and the Pacific, and there’s never been a hearing on the resolution.

Washington obscures the Trade War by calling it globalization. Globalization is nothing more than a trade war with production looking for countries cheaper to produce. And U. S. production has long since learned that China and other countries are cheaper to produce. Corporate America resisted off-shoring. I worked with them for years in the United States Senate on measures to enforce our trade laws and protect their production and jobs. But when my efforts were vetoed by presidents of both parties, Corporate America learned that it couldn’t get any protection from Congress and it was forced to offshore. First, it was American textiles, electronics and communications that off-shored to China. Now it is high-tech – Intel and Microsoft. Today we have a deficit in the balance of trade in advanced technology with China. Now China alters United States' and others’ technology slightly and moves to patent it. And with this altered technology sold in China’s vast market, it will become the article of trade in the Trade War. Before long we’ll have nothing to produce.

We’ve got to come in from the cold in the Trade War and engage in globalization -- start trading, start protecting our production and economy. Congress must stop its charade of “free trade” and respond to its Constitutional charge of regulating trade under Article I, Section 8. And President Obama has to stop vacillating whether to get in or get out of the Trade War. He has no choice. The United States can’t survive with China’s trade policy of total control.

Click here to contact your Representative in Congress.

Unless the above article is already copyrighted, this article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License, EIC grants permission to use this article in whole or in part provided attribution is given, preferably in the form of a link back to EconomyInCrisis.org.

MORE OF TODAY'S NEWS | Comment on this Article | Read Comments


Spread this message with Digg, Del.icio.us, Reddit, or Stumbleupon, and subscribe to the RSS Feed to track articles

Register for newsletter

Bg2

Please Donate to EconomyinCrisis.org today



Please do your part, send a donation of $5, $10, $15 or any amount by PayPal or major credit card.

Bg2

Download our Podcast from iTunes

Itunes

Bg2



Bg2

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter


Download our Podcast from iTunes

Itunes

Bg2

Additional Recommended Articles from the Archives


Bg2

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Bg2

Donate Today


Bg2

Comment on this article

Subject

Comment



Bg2

Article Comments From Readers

guest says "re: Abandonning China" on 11/07/09
China's GDP is greatly exaggerated. It counts a good produced as a good sold. Even before it is shipped. Additionally, lack of arable land coupled with pollution and the Chinese are unable to feed themselves.

The USA remains the world's grocery store.

Finally, aging populations in the USA & Europe is causing markets for consumer goods to contract. Exporting nations cannot develop their domestic markets fast enough. Once they do, labor costs amek them less competitive.

Like Japan in 1990's the China bubble will pop within a generation. Sooner rather than later.

guest says "Abandoning China" on 11/06/09
That will happen, but not for a long time.By then we will be joining Mexico in living standards. You see China's GDP component by Industry sector is 48.6%. That is staying power - much better than Germany at 30.1%, a trade surplused semi-socialist country.

When that sector drops below 15%, you are toast like us.

guest says "Globalization is lipstick on a pig" on 11/06/09
Nationalism is the tool they use to play one against the other. The moment the Chinese People demand green and a social safety net, that is precisely the moment the money will abandon China, as it did England in the First Gilded Age and the USA in this Second Gilded Age.

People live under the fallacy that national governments are omnipotent. Not true. Money recognizes all flags but owes allegiance to none.

guest says "Trade War" on 10/25/09
Thats all we Need, is a another, WAR ?.

biguru says "Desertec" on 10/24/09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec

guest says "Yeah right,lol" on 10/24/09
like Desertec isn't going to say just about anything the goverments want to hear to get that government contract, right? You libs are such head in the sand dreamers.

guest says "Solar Energy" on 10/24/09
Desertec claims that if only 0.3 percent of the expanse of the Sahara was covered with solar panels, it would power the entire European continent. If up to 1 percent of the desert were covered, it could power the entire world.

Desertec hopes to construct decentralized solar fields across different parts of Northern Africa within the next 10 to 15 years. They predict that these installations will generate about 100 gigawatts of power, which would be sent over high-voltage DC lines buried under the Mediterranean and power about 15 percent of Europe. Their plans get even more ambitious from there. The company hopes to also set up a series of desalinization plants in the area as a source of clean water and for irrigation in the region in hopes of reclaiming portions of the desert. They even have a long-range plan that adds wind farms to the mix.

I have said this before here - we should stop burning oil and use it for fertilizer and thousands of other physical products for a better life. Lawyers may not know this, but the technology is here.

guest says "RE; Arguing with the Choir" on 10/24/09
Again, maybe … It would be pretty ugly but what if we covered those parts of the world not currently occupied with devices to soak up the sun’s energy – after all it’s the source of the energy in oil?

You don't seem to see that you are making my point (and no "maybe's" about it) ; yes, the sun was the source of those great stores of energy, but over a period of hundreds of billions of years! The amount of energy that can be collected and stored thru solar power is miniscule by comparison, unit for unit, to oil. What parts of the "unoccupied world" are you talking about? Just exactly where will these devices to collect solar energy be placed (don't forget the NIMBY syndrome which will come into play). Not only that, but the farther North or South of the equator that one goes, the less efficient solar energy systems become. There is really only a narrow belt of land, relatively speaking , North and South of the equator that is useful for solar energy reaping. Also, you seem to fail to realize that it is also petrochemicals which are vitally important (derivatives of oil, if you will) for all manner of chemical products vital to industry. In the words of David Price "man seems to have evolved in the service of entropy". His writings on the subject of energy are well worth reading. Oil is an irreplacable commodity. That, and the fact that our existence as a civilization is dependant upon it is why I said control of it is everything (to those who would rule us). The only viable ADJUNCT sources of power are nuclear (which the PC crowd won't hear of) and hydrogen, which, while the most abundant elemnent in the universe, is difficult to store and utilize because of it extremely volitile nature (think "the Hindenberg". Also, being a single atom in structure, it can seep through almost any but the soundest (and thus expensive) conduits.
The wars conducted in the effort to control this commodity were being fought long before we had "blown our inheritance and credit" (Vietnam was started in the late 1950's already and lasted through till 1975 when Nixon got us out of Vietnam, for example). Population projections for future growth and related geometric consumption of oil studies were known even back then and it was known that we would run out of domestic oil soon enough.
And then there is :
What if we stopped powering personal automobiles with a source of energy that takes billions of years to make and used what’s left to feed the living – thus giving us some time to convince them that one way or another their numbers must and are going to be reduced?
What if , indeed. How will you "convince" the world's poor, with their unbridled reproductive urges, to stop overbreeding (as if this hasn't been tried over the past 100 or so years)? China has managed to do so, but only through brute force. Yes, dreams are still legal, so dream on!

guest says "Arguing with the choir" on 10/23/09
I actually agree with the point of Sen. Hollings' article (maybe), just not the really lame way he tried to make it: the US should return to making money by making things. However, to suggest or even imply that things got this bad because China or Japan used unfair tactics in a Trade War against a naïve US is, to say the least, misleading. We’ll have to take Sen. Hollings word about “Corporate America resisted off-shoring.” But I reject his definition of globalization. Globalization is about finance, not trade. It is about using capital and bank credit denominated in the once mighty US dollar in lieu of (whenever possible) the once mighty US military to secure control of the world’s resources and the labor necessary to turn them into ever more money via the largest possible profits.

That’s all the banks and the nth generation holders of the West’s wealth (and for that matter those of us watching ‘wealth’ (sic) pile up in our 401ks – before it was vaporized by Wall Street’s “weapons of financial mass destruction - who were conned into believing we’d become a part of the ‘ownership society) ever cared about – not where stuff is made or even consumed. It is about where the most money is made the quickest, both literally in the form of bank credit and figuratively in the form of profits.

So much for Sen. Hollings. Now for the ‘other guest’… “It was about the most precious commodity in the world… because control of oil is EVERYTHING!” Maybe … when you’ve blown your inheritance and your credit, when financial fraud will no longer suffice. Let’s call this a ‘chicken or egg’ question.

“Without the energy that only oil can supply there is no way to feed the world's (and China's) burgeoning population, and regardless of the PC crowd's fantasies, modern technology would come to a screeching halt without it.” Again, maybe … It would be pretty ugly but what if we covered those parts of the world not currently occupied with devices to soak up the sun’s energy – after all it’s the source of the energy in oil? What if we stopped powering personal automobiles with a source of energy that takes billions of years to make and used what’s left to feed the living – thus giving us some time to convince them that one way or another their numbers must and are going to be reduced?

Last time I checked, dreams are still legal.



guest says "re; "flawed premises"" on 10/23/09
Fritz is a retired Senator, and since I am sure he values that retirement income, he is going to couch his terms in such a way as to not offend the Oligarchs who could affect that income. I know, you know, and for sure Senator Fritz knows that it is not, never has been and never will be about "instituting democracy". It was rather, about the off-shore oil fields near Vietnam. Possibly Michelin rubber tree plantations as well, but democracy? Hell no, what a laugh and Senator Fritz knows that too. It was about the most precious commodity in the world, as precious to everyone as the water they drink and the food we eat because control of oil is EVERYTHING! Nothing is as important. Without the energy that only oil can supply there is no way to feed the world's (and China's) burgeoning population, and regardless of the PC crowd's fantasies, modern technology would come to a screeching halt without it. Without it there would be no petrochemicals (and no fertilizer other than the BS that comes from your politicians), no fuel for the farm tractors, no way to oil bearings even if you could find a way to make them without oil, and the list is endless. In short, control oil, control energy, and you control everything and everybody. In short; look at the money and you find the real reason for every war. I still recall seeing the poor guys who were sent to Vietnam and ended up at the (then) Valley Forge General (Army) Hospital. Missing legs, arms, eyes, skin burned away from our own napalm (artillery and bombing is never surgically precise) all of so that money could be made by the military industrial complex, (then president Johnson owned stock in some of the companies that produced machinery for the war, but I forget which now)by the bankers, and surely for control of the area for reasons of profit, but never, never for anything as ephemeral as "democracy". But, a large contingency of the US population at the time bought into this fraud. Hell, they still do, since even G.W.Bush (he of the room temperature IQ) knew to, or was coached into using, democratic speech (fighting for "freedom" and "democracy") as an excuse for invading Afghanistan, then Iraq, and next probably Iran for......what? Well if you guessed "democracy" then you will have missed the point here!

biguru says "Long Term Vision" on 10/23/09
America does not have the Long Term Vision. America is severely shortsighted. Lee Kuan Yew was interviewed last night by Charlie Rose. Even Charlie did not get what Lee was saying.

In the meantime while we are losing our Production side for several decades, our Consumption side are making obsence amount of money from $400K per year and up.

It will take a long time to turn around the process only if we have the Long Term Vision.

What most people do not know, Lee had to wage war with the Economist, Far Eastern Economic Review, the International Herald Tribune, and the Asian Wall Street Journal, Lee used a combination of lawsuits, anti-Western bluster, intimidation, and circulation restriction to ensure that these publications would practice "self-censorship" when describing events in his country and not derail the programs he instituted.

Our Economists and those very media make sure we are a banana republic.

guest says "Flawed premises" on 10/23/09
Here comes the old "fighting for democracy" again! That's not what we were doing in Vietnam and it is not what we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq (duh!). Take your choice: 1-fighting to sustain a "Empire of Debt" and the right to show the world who's boss, 2-fighting to maintain a predatory INTERNATIONAL finacial elite that can only sustain itself by impoverishing and killing the people it purports to lead (to their destruction).

Sorry Fritz but that old 'fighting for democracy' narcotic doesn't work any more.