Boeing’s CEO joined Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker in a frenzy of negligent economics continuing the export-only lie that the Administration relies upon to justify continued 1900’s trade deals that appease foreign mercantilism and encourage domestic de-industrialization.
Boeing grew from government contracts and significant government help in pushing domestic and oversees military and civilian aircraft sales. The piece, in the WSJ yesterday (subscription required) says:
From large enterprises and multinational corporations to small startups and local manufacturers, an increasing number of businesses are realizing that their customer base is no longer around the corner, but around the world. They understand that 95% of the world’s customers live outside the U.S., and to succeed in the 21st century, they must find a way to reach consumers in ever-expanding markets.
Commerce Department data show that exports have accounted for about one-third of overall U.S. economic growth since 2009.
Do you notice anything missing? Like the import side of the equation? What about the high paying jobs that were lost due to appeasement of foreign mercantilism and trade cheating? Silence. Crickets chirping.
What about the fact that trade simply grows, no matter what any government does, when economies grow? Did anyone notice that the US consumer market is about one-third of the world market… no matter how many poverty stricken people live elsewhere? Apparently not.
Dan DiMicco and I wrote comments – below – to the WSJ puff piece which clumsily, using a series of verbal happy face emoji equivalents, promoted the administration’s trade policy. I was critical. But found that the other 30 comments, at the time, were also critical. Nobody said rah-rah export only. Instead, the other commenters said “puff piece”, Boeing is funded by taxpayer dollars, currency values drive/shrink exports, etc.
Here is Dan’s comment:
The Propaganda continues once again with half-truths! Yes, reducing barriers and exporting is good. BUT, and it’s a BIG BUT, it’s NET trade that drives a successful economy that creates good paying jobs. WE HAVE REPEATEDLY FAILED TO COME OUT AHEAD ON ‘NET’ and BALANCED TRADE. Don’t believe me, then why do we have an accumulated trade deficit of over $12 trillion over the last 15+ years.
If the proponents of the export rhetoric would present a balanced view of trade with an equal emphasis on the importance of being competitive against imports, and if they would visibly support the inclusion and enforcement of the rules of trade that we need in any trade agreement, then then could be taken seriously….but they don’t. Everytime we negotiate a trade deal that supposedly opens up other markets we end up losers for two reasons. The other parties continue to CHEAT on trade into our country and they erect NON TARIFF TRADE BARRIERS to our exports. These non tariff barriers undo the supposed agreements and impose more costly barriers to our products like VAT’s, etc.,
The net result is a complete failure of our efforts to have a net positive impact on our economy or at least not a huge negative drain like we have had for 15+ years. Get serious and present a balanced view on trade and fight for trade on both sides of the equation and stop working to undermine American’s future.
Here is the comment I (Michael Stumo) wrote.
McNerney would lose his job if he only reported revenue to his board, while ignoring expenses. Yet he discusses only US export sales in this negligent puff piece, without considering the import side. US GDP growth depends upon net exports (exports exceeding imports). Net imports, which is the 40 year trend, shrink the economy. US trade performance is the worst in the world. The Clinton Administration pushed legislation, in 1999-2000, to help China into the WTO saying the US would harvest the fruits of massive exports and economic growth. But our goods trade deficit with China hit a record $348 billion last year. The Bush Administration said our net trade with Korea would improve with a trade deal with that country. Instead our trade deficit worsened by 59%. Why would anyone believe them now with regard to the Trans Pacific Partnership?