Paul Dietrich's Global Investing Trends Report

Global Trade vs. Protectionism

Posted March 2, 2008 · 0 Comments

GLOBAL FREE TRADE VS. PROTECTIONISM

 

Over the past six weeks, in every Asian city I visited I was asked the same question. IF A DEMOCRAT WINS THE PRESIDENCY IN NOVEMBER, WILL AMERICA PERECT TRADE BARRIERS TO STOP OUTSOURCING TO ASIA? Asian government officials, economists and stock market analysts are really worried about this possibility.

 

Asians are watching our elections closely and listening to the debates and their concern is that they are being “SCAPEGOATED” because America is losing manufacturing jobs to Asia.

 

You can see this in the Democratic debates over the issue of the NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT, better known as NAFTA.

 

 I have often said that U.S. companies (including their workers) and the U.S. stock market are the major beneficiaries of the global economic expansion in Asia and emerging markets like Latin America.

 

What Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do not understand, is that while 2.4 million U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost since NAFTA took effect in 1994, which is a drop of about 14%, 39 million other jobs outside of manufacturing have been created

in that same time period here in the U.S

 

IT IS TECHNOLOGY, NOT ASIA OR MEXICO

 

The sad part of this nonsensical debate, is that the major reason for the 2.4 million manufacturing jobs loss is productivity gains in the U.S.—not NAFTA or any other trade agreement.

 

It is technology, not Asia, Mexico or any other country that has caused most of that job loss.

 

American manufacturers have increased manufacturing output and productivity by 66% since 1993.

 

UNPRECEDENTED U.S. WORKER PRODUCTIVITY

 

This manufacturing output increase has been unprecedented and sweeping gains in worker productivity have allowed U.S. companies to produce more goods with fewer people.

 

According to USA TODAY, “Some of this has come from outsourcing the most labor-intensive parts of manufacturing, particularly to Asia. But much of it is from the use of more automated systems for assembly lines and high-tech inventory management.

 

Put another way, the main job killer of the past 14 years has not been the "giant sucking sound" of jobs going to Mexico, as enunciated by Ross Perot. Rather it has been that giant humming sound of machines replacing humans.

 

Overall, this increased productivity has led to rising living standards and made the American economy more competitive. It has also left some people behind at a cost of considerable personal pain.

 

The only real answer to the problem of declining employment in manufacturing lies in educating younger workers and retraining older ones. This is, to be sure, a big challenge and a tough sell politically. American schools continue to underperform, particularly in technical knowledge. And most federal retraining programs have failed.

 

Any other answer, however, is simply not responsive to the problem — a workforce with too many people lacking the skills to prosper in a global economy and climb into the middle class. Fixing this is both essential for the economy and vital to U.S. democracy.”

 

I hope that common sense will eventually take hold, no matter who wins the White House in November. But by making global free trade agreements a centerpiece of the debate over the manufacturing economy is cheap pandering. The idea only seeks to scapegoat Asia and Mexico.

 

In the end, protectionism will only make American companies less competitive—and then you really will see significant losses of jobs here in the U.S.

 .

Until next week…

 

 —Paul Dietrich

dietrich@foxhallcapital.com

 

Disclosure: The opinions and portfolio information provided in the Foxhall Global Outlook are subject to change at any time, and are not to be construed as advice for any individual nor as an offer or solicitation of an offer for purchase or sale of any security. Client accounts may differ from model allocations due to many reasons. All investment strategies offer the potential for loss as well as gain. Individuals should consult with their financial professional to determine an investment strategy appropriate for their  objectives, risk level, and time horizon prior to investing. Past performance is not a guarantee of similar future performance.

 


Back to Blog

 



Subscribe
Subscribe to my blog via RSS or email.

Search

About Paul Dietrich
Paul Dietrich is the Chairman, CEO and Co-Chief Investment Officer of Foxhall Capital Management, Inc. (Foxhall).  Foxhall currently manages investments for individuals, mutual funds and private institutions throughout the United States. Paul Dietrich is also a portfolio manager to a publicly traded mutual fund, the Foxhall Global Trends Fund.
Learn more about Paul Dietrich

Latest Video:

Paul Dietrich on FOX Business





Tags

international markets supply and demand stop-loss signals U.S. stock market infrastructure development bull market cycle U.S. dollar tax policies FOXHALL ETF STRATEGIES global hard assets market unemployment rate process Foxhall Capital Management sympathy selling bulll market pacific rim & emerging markets government borrowing stock market bubble economy mortgage foreclosures hedge funds emerging economies investment trends World Bank buy and hold stock market collapse housing markets Eurobonds corporate earnings

Archives
August 2013
July 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
January 2011
December 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
March 2010
January 2010
November 2009
September 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007