
Bill Clinton and American Financiers Armed China - JDulin
https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/how-bill-clinton-and-american-financiers
======
mc32
It was MFN classification and the fast tracking into the WTO that enabled this
result: hollowing out of American manufacturing, wage stagnation for blue
collar workers resulting in economic instability which in turn had an effect
on health and substance abuse. And of course “wage gap” everyone laments.

People like bringing up good old Ronald Reagan, who had faults and was
simplistic about the economy, but Clinton (as mr Perot presciently warmed us)
truly did drive the stake through the blue collar workers back and left them
where we are today, moribund looking for salvation.

Yes, mr Clinton, you did it. It was done eloquently and with the backing of
neoliberal elites, and the then mainstream media. The sophisticated approach
is why he doesn’t get the vilification Reagan does amongst the working class.
But it’s long deserved.

~~~
trianglem
Those jobs were going to be outsourced either ways. There was no way the US
could compete with Asian labor prices. It wasn't just the US either, it was
most of the developed world.

~~~
ChainOfFools
indeed, the cheap labor source was always there, for at least a century. What
changed? Cheap shipping. as in 90-99% reduction in overseas freight costs
within less than two decades. blue collar workers can thank the humble
intermodal shipping container and its systems integration refinement by
malcolm McLean for much of their plight. oceans became lakes almost overnight.

~~~
beerandt
Intermodal containerization is one of the most underrated and underappreciated
technologies of our civilization. I'm not saying it's unappreciated, but
people don't realize the extent that it's changed the world.

But it didn't happen in a vacuum. Cheap shipping certainly wouldn't be
possible without containerization and improvements in logistics, but the new
system only made sense when scaled up to giant ships (fuel and crew size
efficiency), which in turn only became feasable when ships could
quickly/easily onload and offload at multiple ports in multiple countries,
without quarantine/ security/ customs delays at each port.

You could say it's a chicken & egg situation, but the scale of the
containerization age only began to make sense in the context of relaxed
regulation and efficient import/export policy.

Also, it wasn't a case of non-existant regulation racing to catch up with a
booming new technology (ala the internet or Uber/Lyft). International trade
regulation has been around since before, well, nations were even a thing. It's
the original bureaucracy. The regulation had to be addressed first, or at
least simultaneously. Which to me is as impressive, if not moreso- cutting
through a worldwide rats nest of bureaucratic red tape in so little time.
(Regardless of if you agree with the resulting policy.)

~~~
beerandt
It's also worth noting China's effort to apply some of these same principles
in the shape of their massive Belt & Road project, and the unintended
consequences of trying to _force_ "free" trade using planned market tactics:

[https://pandapawdragonclaw.blog/2019/08/23/empty-trains-
on-t...](https://pandapawdragonclaw.blog/2019/08/23/empty-trains-on-the-
modern-silk-road-when-belt-and-road-interests-dont-align/)

I believe there was a HN discussion on the article when it came out.

------
deogeo
> For instance, during the Obama administration, Mack McLarty - President Bill
> Clinton’s first chief of staff - made $300 million in luxury auto dealers in
> China after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff helped
> broker an introduction to key Chinese leaders.

Conflict of interests doesn't begin to describe it...

~~~
Fjolsvith
It is interesting to see the donations to the Clinton Foundation have dropped
significantly since the 2016 election. [1] Its almost as if the gravy train
has been derailed.

1\. [https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/nov/11/money-to-
cli...](https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2018/nov/11/money-to-clintons-
nonprofit-tapering-20/)

------
president
Glad this subject is starting to see light. China's totalitarian rise is due
to America's own internal corruption, political deadlock, and inability to
grasp reality.

~~~
remarkEon
I waiver back and forth between thinking that this was just institutional
naivete or an intentional graft based on the thought that "China will surpass
us eventually ... so how do we profit?" held by a lot of Elites at the time
(and probably today).

~~~
devoply
China will surpass us? How does a country which was in China's position during
Nixon's time we're talking about a country of farmers, create such thoughts.
No the prevailing thought was that if we bring China in line with our power
structure their elites and their children will join us at the top and help us
exploit their population so that we can continue to make untold amounts of
profit. Unfortunately, China's elites decided against that dream.

~~~
remarkEon
During Nixon's time, maybe. But that hasn't been the tone for a while. Today
it's "market of a billion people" this, "incredible growth curve" that (even
if people suspected or even knew it was all BS). There was certainly a vein of
neoliberal thought that went the way you are going, where the more their
market opens up the more they "democratize".

>China's elites decided against that dream

For them I think it was much more a nightmare than a dream.

------
0xakhil
Hasn’t china’s cheap labour helped American companies to capture international
market? If Americans didn’t do it, someone else would have leveraged China and
owned these markets now.

------
mips_avatar
McDonnell Douglas, not McConnell Douglas.

------
madengr
This was all known during the Clinton administration. Lot of good it did then.

~~~
taobility
This is not surprise at all. Even Clinton didn't do that, other president
would it as well, since US politician just have a long sight no longer than 4
years or 8 years. And what they care most is the vote, and the party's
interesting, instead of the country or the majority's benefit.

------
sbmthakur
Tragic, considering that the US has an arms embargo on China.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_embargo#People%27s_Republ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_embargo#People%27s_Republic_of_China)

------
snowwrestler
This piece assumes and depends on a fear of China. That is, it takes for
granted that enabling the economic success of China is necessarily to the
detriment of the U.S.

This is an assumption that is worth inspecting. While it is true that China's
technological capabilities have increased dramatically since the Clinton
presidency, it's also true that their economy has improved, lifting millions
of Chinese into the middle class, and their trade with the U.S. has grown
dramatically.

Trade is a stabilizing influence on international relations. Our huge volume
of trade with China is why Trump is having a "trade war" with China today, not
a real war. Trade wars are better in _every way_ compared to a shooting war.
But a trade war can only exist between nations that share significant trade.

Is our relationship with China perfect? No. Agree with the tactics or not (I
don't, personally [1]), but the Trump administration is responding to real
domestic concerns about how China operates.

Is China's governance and approach to their citizens' civil rights perfect?
Definitely not!

But: it is a desirable goal is grow the international economy. Doing so lifts
people out of poverty, gives them a reason to seek peace, and creates
beneficial large-scale effects like improving efficiency and slowing
population growth.

Growing the global economy means that other nations will prosper and develop
their technologies, which include military technologies. One particular deal
with China--bad as it was--was not the lynchpin of nuclear detente; China had
the means to wipe the U.S. off the globe the day Clinton took office.

 _They don 't want to._ That preference for mutually prosperous peace is far
more important to the national security of the U.S. than the details of a
particular military deal.

The article depicts the Clinton administration as having "a fear of offending
China." What they actually had (and share with a large number of other people)
is a belief that China does not have to lose, or be "contained", for the U.S.
to keep winning. In fact, everything we know about economic growth says that
the U.S. will win _more_ if we trade productively with growing nations.

[1] IMO the TPP with the U.S. in it would have been more effective at shaping
China's behavior than the current U.S. tariffs, with fewer negative side-
effects in the U.S.

~~~
president
This is a logical standpoint but also a naive one because it ignores China's
end goal of erasing democracy and the silent means by which they have already
started succeeding. This has been covered by numerous China experts over the
years but largely ignored due to internal US corruption, which is not helped
by bribery on the part of the CCP. In a vacuum, growing their economy could be
seen as a good thing for the global economy but the reality is that by
investing and empowering the CCP is actually strengthening their grip on
breaking down democracies - which will actually be worse off for the world
economy. Remember that most people are not looking for the demise of Chinese
people, rather they are looking for an end to the CCP dynasty.

------
wbl
China has had the ICMB since 1981.

