The protectionist movement has been growing in America, and with every new layoff announcement it only gets stronger. Only adding fuel to the fire is the billions upon billions of taxpayer money that the government is handing out to American companies. Naturally there would have been mass outrage if the U.S. government gave this money to foreign corporations. However, as Robert Reich explains in a recent article the country just might be better off if some of these foreign corporations received funds instead of some of the American companies. After all what good is it to unemployed American workers if these American companies take the bailout money and use it to expand operations in some foreign country? Reich's point is that we should be focusing on what will create the most American jobs, rather than just focusing on supporting American companies. Mark Thoma presents the article by Reich in his blog post below:
The Perils of Confusing American Companies With American Jobs, by Robert Reich: Do not confuse American companies with American jobs. The new stimulus bill, for example, requires that the money be used for production in the United States. Foreign governments, along with large U.S. multinationals concerned about possible foreign retaliation, charge this favors American-based companies. That's not quite true. Foreign companies are eligible to receive stimulus money for things they make here... For example, Alstom, the French engineering company, is eligible to receive stimulus funds for the power turbines it produces in Tennessee... On the other hand, U.S. Steel may not be eligible for stimulus money for the steel slabs it casts in Ontario, Canada.
I'm not defending the "buy American" provisions... I'm just saying they're not the same as "buy from American companies." And although these provisions skate close to protectionism and risk foreign retaliation, at least a case can be made that if American taxpayers are footing the bill..., the jobs should be created, well, here in America.
The same confusion haunts the debate over the auto bailout. Advocates of bailing out GM and Chrysler, and most likely Ford, say America can’t afford to lose "its" auto industry. But ... foreign-owned automakers, already producing cars here in the United States, employ – directly or indirectly – hundreds of thousands of Americans. ...
Meanwhile, the Big Three themselves are global. A Pontiac G8 shipped by GM from Australia has less American content than a BMW X5 assembled in the United States. ...
I’m not arguing against an auto bailout. But it ought to be focused on helping American auto workers rather than helping global auto companies headquartered in America. Why pay the Big Three billions of taxpayer dollars ... when, even after being bailed out, they cut tens of thousands of American jobs, slash wages, and shrink their American operations...?
That’s backwards. The auto bailout should help American autoworkers keep their jobs or get new ones that pay almost as well.
Whether it’s stimulus or bailout, policy makers must remember that American companies aren’t the same as American workers – and our first responsibility is to the latter.
"I'm not defending the 'buy American' provisions..." Neither am I.
This post can also be viewed on economistsview.typepad.com.