Mendacity at 1600
Our president, speaking in India on 2 March, said the United States should welcome competition from the far-eastern nations. There was a picture of him -- open collar, big smile -- holding an ancient hand plow across his shoulder like a rifle. I don't want to make too much of the picture, but it's just possible that George's handlers knew the trade message would not play too well back home, so they threw in the primitive "machine" to give us a false notion of what we're competing against. The president also suggested -- aloud -- that the 300 million people of India's middle class were anxious to purchase American goods. I suppose it's possible that Indian people dream about having air conditioned homes, and 12-cycle washing machines (made in Mexico), but the numbers say otherwise. Just like us, they're buying most of what they buy from foreigners, not from us, but from neighboring China.
But that's not what's at the heart of the problem. Your president is asking American workers to compete with economies which, for one reason or another, have a distinct advantage. The Chinese worker, for instance, works where the government tells him to work, for wages set by the government. It would be a stretch to call China's economy "slave-based," but that's what we had been told to call it for half-a-century. Only now, when America's transnational corporations are branching out to the world, have we been asked to regard China as "fair competition."
Americans, still remembering 9-11 (even if George isn't), may wonder why he's threatening to veto any attempt by Congress to cancel the deal to turn over operation of our major ports to a company doing business out of the United Arab Emirates. The veto threat is clearly not about security. It's about so-called "fair trade." If the U. S. puts up a barrier to trade for security reasons, the lobbyists for the corporations claim the precedent set by the barrier will inhibit their clients' ability to exploit foreign markets and labor pools. The only way to undestand the threatened veto is to recognize that in the mind of your so-called "security-conscious" president, security is not the highest priority. That place is reserved for corporate interests.
But then, some people always knew that. The rest are beginning to catch on.
[The above is my latest editorial in the local newspaper. After press time, the company in the UAE pulled out of the contract, relieving pressure on our mendacious leaders. Draw your own conclusions.]
But that's not what's at the heart of the problem. Your president is asking American workers to compete with economies which, for one reason or another, have a distinct advantage. The Chinese worker, for instance, works where the government tells him to work, for wages set by the government. It would be a stretch to call China's economy "slave-based," but that's what we had been told to call it for half-a-century. Only now, when America's transnational corporations are branching out to the world, have we been asked to regard China as "fair competition."
Americans, still remembering 9-11 (even if George isn't), may wonder why he's threatening to veto any attempt by Congress to cancel the deal to turn over operation of our major ports to a company doing business out of the United Arab Emirates. The veto threat is clearly not about security. It's about so-called "fair trade." If the U. S. puts up a barrier to trade for security reasons, the lobbyists for the corporations claim the precedent set by the barrier will inhibit their clients' ability to exploit foreign markets and labor pools. The only way to undestand the threatened veto is to recognize that in the mind of your so-called "security-conscious" president, security is not the highest priority. That place is reserved for corporate interests.
But then, some people always knew that. The rest are beginning to catch on.
[The above is my latest editorial in the local newspaper. After press time, the company in the UAE pulled out of the contract, relieving pressure on our mendacious leaders. Draw your own conclusions.]
posted by Benedict S. at 8:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home