Fed's Fisher says protectionism equals "economic death"

[Joanne98]

Source: Reuters


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Dallas Federal Reserve President Richard Fisher warned on Monday against "Buy America" provisions in a proposed fiscal stimulus law and said it could lead to devastating protectionism.

"Protectionism is the crack cocaine of economics," Fisher told C-Span television in an interview for its "Washington Journal" program.

"It provides an immediate high that leads to economic death. We cannot afford to go down that route," said Fisher, who is not a voting member of the Fed's policy-setting committee this year.

President Barack Obama has proposed an $825 billion government spending package to end the country's yearlong recession, which is being debated by U.S. lawmakers.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5113CK20090202

---

When will it be time to seriously start talking about abolishing the Fed. We can fold them into Treasury. Maybe we should have huge protests this summer to get that done. The Fed is a treasonous nest of snakes!

[POAS]

1. Well obviously "free-trade" has worked so well

building jobs in America, why would one ever think of protecting the remaining ones.

[Jim__]

4. My exact thought when I read that.

These people seem totally incapable of recognizing the existing reality.

[The2ndWheel]

5. It's not about America

It's about the global machine, not any individual country within it.

[Warpy]

2. The Fed should be nationalized

and accountable to all 3 branches of government. It's insane to have an independently owned central bank, which is what the Fed is.

Actually, any bank with a negative balance sheet needs to be nationalized temporarily to let its doors stay open in the absence of a legal asset to debt ratio. Continuing to throw good money after bad seems not to be the answer as long as their corporate culture of excess survives.

As for protectionism, it only harms the rich. The rest of us prosper by it. It's obvious who's pulling Fisher's strings, another argument in favor of nationalizing it.

[WriteDown]

7. How is it independently owned?

It is independent in the sense that its policies don’t need legislative or executive approval, but Congress does have oversight.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pf/pdf/pf_1.pdf

And what’s a negative balance sheet? I’m not familiar with that term.

[JayMusgrove]

3. He just doesn't get it, does he?

Choosing products made in one nation in the world, over products made in 180 other nations, that's NOT PROTECTIONISM, it's free choice within the world marketplace of goods. Individuals do it all that time, why can't the US government do it, too? And, by doing so, the USA employs more people. We don't ship people to China to get treated for Cancer, that would be absurd, just because China can do it cheaper.

[pampango]

6. Canadians and Europeans would say that our politicians taking away free choice of

our government agencies to select from within the world marketplace of goods. If you tell government administrators that they cannot buy anything made in Canada or Europe or any country other than the US, they do not have the option of purchasing any of the 180 countries in the world. If someone tells me I can't buy French wine, I have to buy American wine, I no longer have a free choice within the world marketplace of goods.

[Beavker]

8. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't...

Buy American. No wait, that will piss of the slave labor in India. Talk about Schizophrenic messages. Catapiller is one that would love the stimulous package involving the infrastucture. They'd love to sell more equipment to build roads and bridges. However, they outwardly do not want to be forced to buy American Steel because it will piss off their foreign suppliers and buyers of their products. I want my Free Cake and I want to Eat it too...and not give any to anyone else. Sounds great if they get the stimulous money, but no one else can benefit from it.

If you can't survive because you have to depend of a foreign suppliers, and have to depend on foreign buyers to keep you afloat...you are too big. Base you business off of the good old U.S.A. If someone in Switzerland wants your product for what it is. Great. Sell it to them. Don't depend on it and thus get into the practice of selling your U.S. brother and sister industries down the river. Boycott Cat!

[bemildred]

9. Yeah, and dogmatic ideological thinking like this is "mental death". nt

[denverbill]

10. Well, since it's my or my children's tax dollars going to pay for this, I'd better have a say.

This is fucking nuts.

I'm paying taxes to fund job creation in China? What the fuck is the point of a stimulus package then? Sure as hell no other country is going to spend $800 billion to fund job creation in the US.

The damned free-traders will be the death of the middle class worldwide.

Sure ok. Let's write the rules so that anyone getting US government money has to compete on the same terms. If a Chinese company wants to supply steel, write it into the package that they have to be paying US union scale wages, health benefits, and retirement packages, and meet US environmental restrictions, then compete on price. And be sure to require that companies be monitored from compliance, so that if a company says it will pay it's steelworkers $30/hr, we make sure that's what the workers are being paid.

[pampango]

13. The complaining I've see has been coming from Canada and Europe where

they are "paying US union scale wages, health benefits, and retirement packages, and meet US environmental restrictions." So you are willing to allow Canadians and Europeans to compete with American companies on price?

[denverbill]

14. If it was up to me, no.

When we are spending American tax dollars, we should be able to spend it in a way that benefits America the most.

If Canadians want to benefit from our tax dollars, let them pay taxes into our system too.

I have far less of a problem with 'free-trade' with Canada and Europe when it comes to private transactions, but if Canadians need economic stimulus, let them tax themselves to pay for it. They have my permission to spend their own taxes creating jobs exclusively in Canada.

If it were up to me, the stimulus package would require that all contracts be given exclusively to American-based, American tax-paying corporations, who do the work with American workers. Why should we be forced to spend tax dollars supporting an American corporation which moves their base to Bermuda to dodge US taxes or who outsource their work to India?

[pampango]

18. So even if we "write the rules so that anyone getting US government money has to compete on the same

terms" we can't let Canadians and Europeans compete with us. Just wanted to be clear that it is "American first" not "we can compete as long as it's fair".

[denverbill]

20. America first is my first choice. Barring that, since it ain't going to happen,

it's 'write the rules so that anyone getting US government money has to compete on the same terms'. But knowing the 'free traders' that infest Congress these days, we'll be lucky to get even that.

As I said, competition and 'fair trade' are fine in the private arena. I just object to 'free trade' with China in the private arena, and spending tax dollars to support foreign corporations and workers in the public arena.

If Americans are going to compete with foreigners for tax dollars, why not let them compete for the projects as well. I'm sure some town in Zimbabwe needs infrastructure VASTLY more than we need a bridge repaired in Denver. And there are British banks that need bailouts too. And there are kids in Africa that need food more than some family in needs food stamps.

[pampango]

22. I'm sure you know that a lot of America tax dollars do go overseas to

all kinds of worthwhile and not so worthwhile projects. In a sense we do compete with foreigners for our tax dollars and always have.

[denverbill]

23. 'Lot' is pretty relative term. $26 billion last year. Out of a $2 trillion budget?

That's 1.3%. And $2 billion of that is for military hardware for Israel.

But OK. I'm willing to let 1.3% of the stimulus package go to foreign corporations and individuals, but I still think it should all stay here. If the American economy totally collapses, there's going to be even more pain in the rest of the world than there is right now. Fix our mess first, and the whole world recovers a lot more quickly.

[Hannah Bell]

28. do multinational corps "compete"? it's my impression most of them collude.

i know the car, food, & resource corps do.

the main competition is only between workers.

[GinaMaria]

15. I agree. If it's our money being used to stimulate the economy

or fund bailouts, then we do have a say. If American corporations want to benefit from the stimulus package, then they need to employ the American tax payers who funded it.

[Xipe Totec]

11. Economic death for whom?

The rich?


Because most of us are already under.

[brentspeak]

24. Exactly.

This guy and his paper-flipping ilk have been our economic death -- and now they just want to dance on our graves because it can squeeze a few more pennies for them.

[acmavm]

12. Hasn't this guy figured out we're 'dead' economically now? Thanks

to the shennanigans by people like him?

[cobalt1999]

16. How much do we Import vs. Export?

It would be one thing if we had a trade surplus and pissed off our trading partners. However, if we actually had to produce what we import, there would be a lot of new jobs. The ones that would suffer are the countries that live by importing to us.

[rrneck]

17. If a U.S. company wants to use slave labor in

China or elsewhere, fine. Make it pay for all of us. Tax the company for the difference in wages between that of an American worker and those overseas. Use the tax dollars collected for workers here. The problem is that the rich get richer through human rights abuses of the global economy, while the service industry wages they have to pay here get suppressed as an indirect result.

Who was it that said, "you can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half."?

When corporations are no longer able to make a killing working third graders and pregnant women to death, all those jobs will come home right quick.

[MissMillie]

19. it's not protectionism when

privately funded projects are available to foreign suppliers.

[superconnected]

21. "Protectionism is the crack cocaine of economics," - nice analogy, not.

You have to wonder about people who use drugs to explain things. Sort of like a professor at Oklahoma state that used a prostitute to explain economics to his class once...

[Zhade]

26. I guess you're wondering about me now... see below...

:p

[Zhade]

25. No, "FREE" TRADE is the crack cocaine of economics!

I can't believe there are idiots in this world who still support that utterly failed policy.

[Hannah Bell]

27. only for the capitalists - they have to keep expanding to hold their profit

margins.

for labor, all they have to do is produce enough to feed, shelter & house themselves.

[robcon]

29. The Fed official is right.

The only effect of protectionism is the death of U.S. jobs.

[Gin]

30. I thought GREED was the drug of death of our economy.....and we are all in

rehab whether we want to go or not.