William Greider and The Nation vs. Manufacturers and Competition

By November 8, 2010Energy, Labor Unions, Trade

Writing at Family Security Matters, Bruce Kesler compares the economic program offered by The Nation national correspondent, William Greider, to the policies proposed by the National Association of Manufacturers, the “Manufacturing Strategy for Jobs and a Competitive America.”

Greider’s piece is entitled, “The End of Free-Trade Globalization.” How so? Greider: “It cannot continue as before, because the United States is essentially tapped out. Goliath has fallen and cannot get up.”

Nonsense.

In his commentary, “U.S. Consumers Vs. Unions: Which Program for Congress?,” Kesler describes Greider’s solutions:

Greider’s prescription is to impose more regulation and taxes upon multinationals that ship production elsewhere. Greider does not even suggest that unions negotiate less costly labor contracts or that our government reduce its regulatory burdens upon domestic manufacturers.

Greider, finally, does admit that his recommendation “would raise prices for Americans.”  US manufacturing unions, however, would – though still likely to hemorrhage jobs – keep high wages and benefits for their remaining members, and dues flowing for contributions to Democrat political campaigns.

Kesler then does a nice job summarizing the NAM’s manufacturing strategy, noting its three-pronged goals:

We want the United States to be the best place in the world to headquarter a business. The United States should be the best place to innovate and do the bulk of a company’s global research and development. And the United States should be a great place to manufacture for the North American market and to serve as an export platform for the global market.

Kesler’s conclusion: “The way of the left only digs the hole deeper, and then pulls the dirt in upon our heads. The way of US manufacturers, instead, strengthens the US competitive advantages.”

Leave a Reply