Posts by James Ploeser
Because Wal-Mart Loved Your Last Stimulus Check…
Published March 10, 2009 @ 04:35PM PT
(Editor's Note: This is a guest blogpost from DC-Based Fair Trade Coffee & Policy Activist, James Ploeser as he adds his commentary to that 'Buy American' Provision. Trade policy is still being debated and the term 'protectionism' is still being incorrectly thrown around. What does this mean for American workers, multinational corporations and Fair Traders? James Ploeser explores.)
The Washington Post - and the rest of the mainstream media for that matter - seems to have not gotten the memo about the fatal flaw of the last Congressional stimulus package: it was mostly spent overseas and utterly failed to stave off the current recession.
Many Americans received $300 -$600 stimulus checks last year. Those who didn’t already need that cash to pay down their utility bills and credit cards were sending that money elsewhere by purchasing consumer goods manufactured abroad. Predictably, the cash hemorrhaged out of the U.S. economy and the stimulus failed to spur - much less- sustain an economic upswing.
Wal Mart, on the other hand, got quite the boon. Companies that follow their race-to-the bottom practices of offshoring production to the lowest bidder stand to benefit greatly if they can get their slice of the stimulus pie. That’s why offshoring multinationals like GE and Caterpillar are up in arms about ‘Buy America’ requirements that would reinvigorate domestic production in the national interest – a concept they’ve long ago abandoned. They’ve left U.S. workers in the lurch, so any stimulus aimed at putting as many US workers as possible back on the job will benefit them less.
But the Post seems to think we should shed our tears for Caterpillar, not the workers they’ve deserted - 5,000 already this year - in their quest for more profits. Last month’s editorial was only the first salvo in what’s become a ceaseless barrage of misleading coverage of the 'Buy America' provisions:
“Buy American" sounds patriotic, but paying more than necessary for steel diverts resources that could create jobs in other industries. Worse, it raises the prospect of retaliation against American exporters by U.S. trading partners. The director-general of the European steel industry trade association already has threatened to take the United States before the World Trade Organization if the steel provision passes. (Notably, European stimulus programs do not bar U.S. steel or other products -- yet.)
Another memo for the Post that the post shouldn’t miss: ‘trade’ is a red herring.
As groups like Global Trade Watch are pointing out, ‘Buy America’ rules aren’t protectionist. They don’t impose tariffs or set quotas, nor is there any evidence that requiring some stimulus money be spent in the U.S. will trigger a debilitating trade war. The issue here is whether to make investment in America a condition of stimulus spending.
So let Wal-Mart, GE, Caterpillar and their ilk at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce whine all they like. For them, any condition that protects workers, the environment, or promotes sustainable development is just protectionism in disguise. Far from the FDR-style leadership we need right now, their message is clear: The only thing we have to fear is a phantom ‘trade war’ that lands us all in bread lines!
As people who promote fair trade with small producers globally, we have no problem with commerce with other countries. The question is should the U.S. or any country have the right to set policies that support good jobs, and people-centered development? Not according to the WP, but fair traders have to answer ‘yes’.
