The U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission has issued its annual report {giant .pdf}. Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future hosted a conference call for the Co-Chair of the Commission, Carolyn Bartholomew, and Clyde Presotwitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, who was U.S. Trade Representative under Reagan. The call offered these experts an opportunity to talk about China’s industrial policy.
Prestowitz said something that focused the entire issue for me. He pointed out that labor is not a significant factor in chip manufacture. Why then are so many chip manufacturing facilities located in China? He says it’s because the Chinese wanted these as part of their industrial policy, so they seized the land, built the infrastructure, provided low-cost loans, granted energy and water subsidies, trained a work force, and gave the manufacturers tax breaks. Now they offer more subtle incentives, funding for research and development, refunds of the value added tax and space in industrial parks. As Prestowitz said, the plants are there for financial reasons.
This is Chinese policy. They want to grow their economy by attracting foreign capital and foreign technology. They intend to maintain state control over crucial industries.
China’s overall industrial policy … is characterized by three main parts: (1) the creation of an export-led and foreign investment-led manufacturing sector; (2) an emphasis on fostering the growth of industries such as high-technology products that add maximum value to the Chinese economy; and (3) the creation of jobs sufficient to reliably employ the Chinese workforce, thereby allowing the Chinese Communist Party to maintain control.
Many Chinese subsidies violate the requirements of the World Trade Organization, and the US has sought sanctions, but the Commission says that the WTO rules are meant to deal with narrow issues, not the broad national practices of China. The WTO rules require consultations as well as litigation, and even after a victory, they are able to delay. By the time the US and Canada won a WTO ruling barring favoritism in manufacture of auto parts, many manufacturers had moved production to China, so those jobs were lost.
Don’t think that we will be able to compete with our high tech products. China uses industrial policy to achieve technology transfer. Here’s an example from the call. China had not mastered several crucial issues in the manufacture of jet propulsion blades. Similar techniques are used in giant wind turbines. Under the guise of building wind turbines, the Chinese learned these techniques, and transferred them to other blade uses, such as submarines and jet engines.
If we offered subsidies like that here, the uproar from both sides would be overwhelming. It is an article of faith that the government cannot be involved in picking winners and losers. As a result, we are unable to formulate national plans. Our economy operates on the basis of random and short-term decisions. Each business tries to maximize its own good. No business has to consider the benefits of their decisions on the whole nation. No business has to consider whether its decisions might be harmful to the national interest. No business even considers whether its decisions might be harmful to its own interests in the long run. As a result, we have lost our manufacturing base and have no tools to do better.
It’s apparent we need to deal with this. But how? We can’t even use the phrase “industrial policy” in political discussions with either party. Our government is fractured. We no longer operate under majority rule, as the Senate clearly shows.
Denis Simon, professor at Penn State’s School of International Affairs, testified before the Commission:
China sees the global financial crisis as an affirmation that ‘‘China holds the philosophical high ground, reinforcing its long-held position at home and abroad that unbridled capitalism and a weak state are a sure recipe for serious sociopolitical and economic problems’’ ….
An accurate description of the US after years of corporatist rule: unbridled capitalism and a weak state.




34 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
F*cked ‘R’ Us.
“China’s overall industrial policy … is characterized by three main parts: (1) the creation of an export-led and foreign investment-led manufacturing sector; (2) an emphasis on fostering the growth of industries such as high-technology products that add maximum value to the Chinese economy; and (3) the creation of jobs sufficient to reliably employ the Chinese workforce, thereby allowing the Chinese Communist Party to maintain control.” Let’s see now – number(2) was supposed to be the way the US was going to keep its industrial head above water. Didn’t work out, did it, Ronnie? And number (3) is, to me, the over-riding principle for the Communists — they KNOW what can happen in a country as big as China, with the population as large as China’s, if they don’t keep stability through employment/food/housing, etc. On the other side, Congress is not afraid of the American Public – they couldn’t care less.
Maybe we can come up with a new name for “industrial policy” that will allow us to do something, even if in some other guise.
I asked Bartholomew how we could even begin a discussion of industrial policy, and before I could even say there was a bipartisan rejection of the idea, she said we’d have to rename it. She thought maybe we could call it a jobs policy.
She went on to say that even the republicans on the Commission began to express concern when a witness at a hearing testified that the US was ordering triggers for howitzers from abroad because we can’t make them here.
How about “National Security Through Industrial Competence?” If they are worried about triggers on howitzers, how will they feel about finding out that we don’t even make the equipment to make stuff in this country any more.
This morning, Robert Reich, speaking on ABC’s This Week, described it as the difference between China’s “authoritarian” capitalism and our “democratic” capitalism (though I think our capitalism is more plutocratic than democratic).
Bottom line: The US getting the World Trade Organization to sanction China for Chinese subsidies that violate WTO requirements ain’t gonna fix our problems.
And, as masaccio points out:
I agree that, for better or worse, no one in the US is going to accept “authoritarian” capitalism.
So, what else is there?
Did they call beck before they issued the report?? Since he’s now advocates that the US needs to ‘think like china’ to produce his vision of the US he and his followers want…
Think I’m making this up?? Look it up – TODAY, from his ‘public’ gathering in Florida….
A shattered yield to maturity curve
Why would D.C. invest any political, financial or moral capital in creating real wealth in the real U.S. domestic economy when instant paper returns dictated by Wall Street are exponentially greater & quicker?
Until 2007, what the U.S. manufactured better than any economy in the world were consumers spending their hard borrowed money into bankruptcy, and derivative credit risk in the hundreds of trillions that destroyed the world financial system’s foundations.
That’s the industrial policy of America in a nutshell.
“I agree that, for better or worse, no one in the US is going to accept “authoritarian” capitalism.”
Is that because our ‘crony capitalism’ is working out so well, or because global capitalists are not constrained by either borders, or political ideologies in their single minded pursuit of personal wealth?
The face of America’s near enough future is Detroit.
Wall st globalists are traitors and washington politicians, who are the globalists personal assistants and butlers, (democrat republican and independents), are not serving the interests of the country.Somehow the right left partisanship has to be overcome at least to deal with this massive national securtiy problem.
It’s our(leaders, if you can call them that)fault that we’re in this postion. The drive to shift manufacturing to low labor cost countries was both short sighted and stupid. The idea that one can avoid the transfer of cutting edge technology while building the stuff overseas is absurd. Hell, the only reason that China has a manned space program is that Loral wanted to get thier payloads into orbit cheaper.
The alternative is coherent planning. Right now, subsidies go to whoever can wheedle them out of a government. That’s why the title of this post includes US random behavior. If we get organized about subsidies, we can insist that they only go to industries that will help.
Why should a MacDonald’s franchisee or a shopping center get a tax free bond or any other subsidy? Making sure that any subsidy goes to an industry we can agree will have long term benefits for the nation as a whole makes sense.
Of course the Right blames campain donations to Clinton from China rather than greedy corporations for the problem.
Thanks for the excellent analysis, Masaccio
What we need is long term strategic planning.
Unfortunately what we get is front running.
And, as masaccio points out:
If we offered subsidies like that here, the uproar from both sides would be overwhelming. It is an article of faith that the government cannot be involved in picking winners and losers. As a result, we are unable to formulate national plans.
*****************
Nonsense! We have done just that with the Wall Street bailouts.
They replaced some of the air defense computers, in the mid-80s, because the machines required vacuum tubes that were only made in Czechoslovakia.
It was driven by the legal requirement that corporations act in the best interests of their management and their shareholders. (Notice that customers and employees aren’t there, except as they own shares.)
It’s not only the Chinese. There are major chip installations in Viet Nam and elsewhere.
More likely that they were replaced with solid state computers.
Vacuum tube computers in the 80′s? One tube could only do the job of 2 transistors. CPU’s have millions. Their only saving grace was the relative resistance of tube technology to EMP. They could be considered hardened equipment but at the price of speed.
Oh yes. I was working on DoD programs in the ’90s that were still paper-tape based systems.
Once DoD got to a baseline with a system, they tended to stick with it until far after it had outlived any usefulness anywhere else.
The cost of replacing the technology, once baselined and secure, was far more than doD was willing to spend.
The US could start by changing tax policies that favor grabbing the quick cash over actual investment and work. Why should our plutocrats change when its written into the tax code that the money made this quarter by moving jobs overseas is taxed lower than profits gained by keeping them in the US?
We could also prosecute hedge funds and private equity firms that “bust out” American companies the same way Mafia organizations are for the exact same behavior. Read about Simmons Bedding at Profits for Buyout Firms as Company Debt Soared the NYTimes from 10/4. How was this different from a Sopranos plot line?
With a compensation program averaging $700,000 per employee, we’ll see if Goldman Sachs stockholders agree to be on the other side of the firm’s motto — We make money the old fashioned way …. we steal it — like suckered, future federal debt laden taxpayers.
This is another good point. Suppose we had a tax on imported chips which accounted for the subsidies the chip makers got from their foreign hosts.
Tape readers are one thing. The actual computers another.
So, you actually saw roomfuls of VT computers? Complete with either huge magnetic tape drives or worse, core memory?
In the 90′s? Hell, in the 90′s I was already working to update legacy solid state equipment, which really took off about 2001. These were 70′s based solid state devices at that.
Yes.
Although not the ’90s, when I left the USAF in 1982, they were just beginning the acquisition process to replace standard base-level systems, including the Base Supply system which was Univac 1050 II, single programming, single processing.
Oh yeah, vacuum tubes, paper tape, and punch card based systems were still alive and well as recently as the ’90s.
China is rapidly on its way to becoming the next superpower. They are no longer really “pure” communists. They have blended-rather successfully-communism and capitalism. Yes, they have endemic corruption and yes, they restrict peoples voices in politics. But really, when you ask people in damn near any country in the world what they want I have very rarely heard the word “freedom” which can mean very different things to different people. The vast majority of people-just like those who were alive when the revolution started here-in the world, just want to be left alone. By govt, religion, the tax man,war, soldiers, everybody. They want a job that pays enough to feed their families, put a roof over their heads, stay warm in winter, and finally have their children live better than they do. Most people-in countries other than the US-value education over all. Of course in most countries one has to pay to go to school after primary school. Except in the US where 30% of HS students drop out of free school. Freedom comes way way down the list
When I was in college, I worked on an IBM 1130, with punch tape. We wrote code in Fortran.
Now when I was in the AF I started out learning VT(vacuum tube)technology(1968), halfway thru my 46 week electronics tech school we learned about transistors, I went to factory schools in the 70s to learn all about solid state devices and microchips-the first in a series of factory schools that started in 1973 at Texas Instruments and taught us the theory so that we could then learn how to fix the systems. Back then I worked on bleeding edge tech. Had to go back to schools every year for about 3 months just to keep up. Then again, some aircraft still had WWII RDF-radio direction finding-equipment in 1980 along with WWII IFF systems(with explosives that were supposed to go off in case of crash, very interesting when you have no idea they still existed). In 1970 while in Vietnam we actually worked on WWII C-47s that had a mix of WWII tech along with bleeding edge tech.
I was stationed in Turkey in 1969. We had an Army microwave radio with a tube so old that when it went down, we could only find the replacement at the Signal Museum at Fort Monmouth. We needed it, so they took it out of the museum model and sent it to us.
Indeed.
Consider that Barbara Boxer is one Senator (of two) from a state whose population is around 32,000,000. And her vote is counted the same in the Senate as a member who represents Alaska’s 900,000 or so voters.
The GOP’s key control mechanism for decades appears to have been the US Senate. In order to control the courts.
weak state, indeed.
I am on the record favoring a policy to re-industrialize the country in a sustainable way. This is where stimulus efforts should be directed.
As for China, its current policies have been something of a fiasco. The government tried to force lending which largely resulted in a lot of bad loans and a stock market bubble. (Yes, they had one too.) There continues to be a lot of build up which is producing a larger and larger capacity overhang. So while not as idiot as Summers and Geithner, they have made many wrong moves as well.
I agree that many of the policies of China’s policies have had bad outcomes. As Krugman has noted several times, and Bartholomew and Prestowitz agreed on the call, they are not really able to get out of their dollar trap.
They did replace them with solid-state machines. The vacuum tube machines dated from the mid-to-late 50s. Some of them – or sections of them – went to museums. (‘On your right, ladies and gentlemen, are bits 4 through 7 of the accumulator ….’)
I keep telling everybody, and it gets confirmed everyday the Chinese are smarted than us.
When one’s smarter that You dealing with them is a real problem.
They aren’t only smarter but let us get to where they have us by the nuts.
Not only do we own them to much money, but are so invested in them producing for us we no longer have any leverage.
Just remember that China didn’t do this to us, we did it to ourselves by trying to use China, and they turned the tables on us.