A screwy thing happened after the United Steelworkers and eight domestic steel producers won their trade case late in December against Chinese manufacturers of the steel pipe used for oil and gas drilling.
Instead of describing it as an important victory for U.S. industry and workers, one in which they proved to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that China violated international trade rules, the media characterized it as Americans unnecessarily picking a fight with the Chinese.
What else is new? It’s exactly what happened in September when the United Steelworkers won tariffs in a trade case regarding imported Chinese tires.
What’s particularly disturbing about this stance from the media is that it occurs only when a trade case involves manufactured goods. The media strongly supports protections for copyrighted material – movies, music etc. The media have made clear they oppose Chinese piracy of intellectual property – you know, like the written and filmed products that media members produce.
But their reaction is completely different when the Chinese violate international rules regarding manufactured goods. Then, the media blame the victims — the U.S. industries and workers – the same way defense attorneys accuse rape victims.
Here, for example, is the Washington Post contending that the ITC decision to impose duties of between 10.4 and 15.8 percent on Chinese pipe heightened trade hostilities between the U.S. and China:
“The current tensions began in September, when the United States imposed a staggering 35 percent import fee on tires from China.”
The Dow Jones Newswire in a story by Henry J. Pulizzi also charged the U.S. with provoking the Chinese by imposing duties, beginning with a reference to the steel pipe decision:
“The ruling adds more tension to the U.S.-China trade relationship. Ties between Washington and Beijing are already frayed by the Obama administration’s imposition of duties on Chinese tire imports and China’s criticism of U.S. moves as protectionist.”
These reporters act like the decisions themselves initiated animosity between the U.S. and China over trade. That completely disregards how the process starts – with China violating international trade rules it had agreed to obey in ways that cause U.S. businesses to collapse, factories to close, thousands of U.S. paper workers, tire workers, steelworkers and others to lose their jobs, and their communities to suffer.
We could sit back and just take it and allow U.S. industries to die, one after another, while China keeps its citizens employed by providing subsidies and supports forbidden under international law to its industries and then selling the goods in the U.S. at prices below production costs.
But that doesn’t sit well with most Americans. They believe their country should enforce trade rules. That is what U.S. industry and unions are demanding. That is what occurred in the tire and steel cases. That is what the United Steelworkers and paper manufacturers are seeking in a trade case to be heard later this year.
Demanding adherence to the rules isn’t protectionism. And the media need to stop saying it is. Here’s how Dan DiMicco, chief executive officer of Nucor, the nation’s second largest steelmaker, explained it, “It is not protectionism when countries are held accountable for the agreements and obligations they freely entered into to have access to the USA and world’s markets.”
In addition to falsely making this a protectionist fight, the media wrongly contend the tariffs were political. Dow Jones, for example, tried to make the unanimous ITC decision in the steel case political, writing:
“The ITC is an independent federal agency tasked with investigating the impact of alleged ‘dumping’ of foreign products on U.S. industries. While its six commissioners are split evenly between Republicans and Democrats, the decision fits with the Obama administration’s push to address U.S. manufacturers’ concerns about Chinese competition.”
Dow Jones implies here that somehow Obama managed to strong-arm all three Republican ITC members to vote his way in this case. None of the stories suggesting politics were involved in the tariff decisions note that Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama and nine Republican Congressmen joined dozens of Democrats in signing letters to the ITC supporting the duties.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has written that failure to enforce trade laws and compel China to stop manipulating its currency could cost the U.S. 1.4 million jobs over the next couple of years. He describes China’s behavior as mercantilist – supporting industry for export of goods to maintain high employment and trade surpluses.
He quoted economist Paul Samuelson:
“With employment less than full. . . all the debunked mercantilist arguments” – that is, claims that nations who subsidize their exports effectively steal jobs from other countries – “turn out to be valid.”
That is what China is doing to the U.S. – stealing jobs.
The U.S. doesn’t have to let it happen. America can enforce international trade laws. It works. Shortly after President Obama imposed the tire tariffs, Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. announced plans to add capacity to its Findlay, Ohio plant and hire up to 100 workers. Other U.S. tire plants began recalling laid off workers.
American manufacturers, workers and communities are the victims of unfairly traded Chinese exports. They’re fed up with the media blaming them when all they’re asking for is justice.



11 Comments

i so want to support what you are doing and of course rules should be followed and rules should be fair (if i recall correctly, it was the united steelworkers who contributed pallets of bottled water to the convergence center for the anti-ftaa protests in miami 2003?), but your conservative appeals to economic nationalism are politically reckless and economically weak. we have to world’s major reserve currency and we could have full employment or something close to it if we wanted. americans in deecee, not the chinese, are responsible for that.
Thank you for posting here and thank you for your strong voice for labor. I am a member of SAG, but I also became an associate Steelworker because I have always admired the Steelworkers and I also spent a lot of time with them in Iowa on the Edwards campaign. Can’t say enough good things about those men and women.
What the press never mentions when talking about the auto industry is how Japan protected its auto industry and kept American cars out. The press never mentions how protectionist India is. The reason China has not experienced what Naomi Klein termed “The Shock Doctrine” is that they protected their financial system and refused to allow the free marketeers near it.
Didn’t we become an industrial giant in the 19th century because of protectionism? The press is in cahoots with the Friedman/Rubin gang of thieves and we need to keep calling them on it. “Protecting” is not a dirty word.
So I agree with Selise in pointing the finger squarely at D.C. I’ve heard you speak and you still are holding on to the idea that this administration means well. I hope you start to lose that “faith” in the whole cesspool called Washington which includes both parties and all branches of government.
i think ha-joon chang makes a lot of sense on this issue (dn! interview, paer paper). especially for developing countries and infant industries, protectionism is a good thing. not so sure about mature industries in rich countries, although as a matter of economic independence and security i wouldn’t want to loose something as critical as steel production.
but that’s not a jobs issue.
i’d love to see us leave behind the cheap labor economic model and work towards a high wage, high employment economy. but the reasons we haven’t don’t, i think, have much to do with china — rather it’s our own monetary, tax and fiscal policies.
p.s. i really did appreciate that water in miami. drank many bottles during the week or so i was there.
I want to support Girard’s remarks and think that selise and montanamaven’s remarks are both off-base.
selise:
But it’s the Americans in DC who are not only posing no objections but cheering loudly (because their stocks rise?) whenever industrial jobs are moved offshore. I notice you don’t comment on Gerard’s point on the discrepancy in elite response when intellectual property revenue vs. manufacturing jobs are at stake between the US and China.
There is evidently a continuing problem on the left with people who are for job creation and retention in the abstract, but oppose any measures that would actually lead to these ends.
montanamaven:
Kind of patronizing, aren’t you. I’m sure Mr. Gerard knows perfectly well what the administration is up to, but is playing his cards a bit differently than you want him to. From his years of experience, he is playing an inside-outside game. He will break from Obama Administration and or the Washington cesspool at a moment of his choosing, and not necessarily at a moment of your choosing. He knows how to play the inside/outside game, which is probably one reason why he and not someone of your persuasion is President of the Steelworkers. He has to get ELECTED. People who just post here, like you and me, do not.
I would also note that your attitude toward protectionism and Selise’s are not the same, in spite of your agreement with him.
This stuff is COMPLICATED.
i don’t support TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights). on this i agree with stiglitz (see for example, Science is being held back by outdated laws, and Who Owns Science? for a part of the reason why).
it’s not a matter of abstract vs concrete. i disagree about the means of job creation/retention being advocated — i don’t think our unemployment (and wage) problems are about china or even primarily our trade policy (which btw i hate and why spent my 2003 vacation in miami getting tear gassed, pepper sprayed, etc protesting against the ftaa). i think they are mainly an issue of our own cheap wage policies. the political problem though is that with the dems advocating neoliberal economic policies (that are profoundly anti-labor), labor leaders have the unenviable choice of either taking on the dem party leadership or looking for someone else to blame. given the state of organized labor in this country, i find it hard to blame labor leaders for not going after the dems — even though i wish they would. i will however object to false claims such as china is stealing our jobs because it’s bad economics and because economic nationalism feeds the nativism of the right which is playing with fire in these days.
btw, if you want to know where i am actually coming from on the issue of jobs, i highly recommend randall wray’s book (Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability) to you as a start.
Thank you for posting this, Leo.
I agree with Stiglitz and you on that question. Similarly I am no fan of “software patents” for example and have never, in my professional life, responded to financial incentives from my employers to produce patentable ideas, which I find abbhorrent. I am much more interested in open-source kinds of activities.
There remains, though, the question of the disparity in elite opinion between readiness to fight over copyright violations by the Chinese and to fight over manufacturing jobs. I think that large portions of the left are too “squeamish” and fearful of being called (by themselves as much as anyone) racist for simply supporting some aspects of economic nationalism. I see a danger in not enough economic nationalism, you see one in too much. The financial elites are utterly incapable of giving ordinary Americans any useful clues about what careers are likely to be more stable than others. We desperately need some sort of industrial policy, and of course, none is forthcoming.
Given the unenviable choices facing the labor movement it’s not hard to understand why they do what they do, as you indicate. Unlike some others on the left, they do indeed have something to lose and have been losing it for years. They will not take up oppositional stands at the drop of the hat. But that just makes such stands more powerful when they do occur. Many in the Netroots are quick to condemn the “Veal Pen” yet miss the significance of things like Trumka’s shot across the bow at the administration over how to pay for Health Care reform.
I don’t know Randall Wray’s book and thanks for the citation. I will have to look for it.
Those portions of the left need to be reminded that not all American workers are white and that minority workers have been disproportionately harmed by the anti-worker policies of the past 30 years.
imo elite opinion has it exactly wrong. our IP laws (and patent laws too — for example on drugs) suck and should be changed rather than fought for. and instead we should be fighting for an economy with good high wage jobs and full employment.
so i think we agree here (except for the china bashing bit).
i could not agree more. desperately is exactly the way i would put it too.
but i don’t know much about how we might construct a modern one. so this issue is high on my reading list. i’ve gotten seymour melman‘s last book, After Capitalism: From Managerialism to Workplace Democracy because marshall auerback recommended him during an interview with george kenney (but i haven’t even started reading it yet, other than the chapter titles. i like this one: the attempt to make workers and unions obsolete). if you have any reading suggestions in this area i’d be grateful for cites.
….
i think we’re in more agreement than not (please correct me if you see it differently). it’s the issue of china and economic nationalism where we disagree?
here i don’t think it’s squeamishness, but rather a genuine difference — although it’s true i don’t like the elite tradition of pitting worker and against worker (whether that is chinese vs american worker or michigan vs tennessee worker or citizen vs undocumented immigrant). i think it is a distraction that disguises many of the neoliberal policies that have got us where we are (i mean for example — how much did volker’s interest rate policy and the undoing of usury laws have to do with deindustrialization and breaking the backs of unions? and done in a democratic administration).
so, while i agree it’s probably unfair, as much as i might wish it, to expect labor leaders to lead the way on challenging the dem’s neoliberal economic policies — i don’t think the same applies to us. in fact just the opposite — it’s up to the rank and file and ordinary citizen’s do have organized labor’s back on this.
my two cents anyway.
excellent point. thank you for the reminder.
excellent point. just as an interesting aside (interesting to me anyway):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20ariely.html