Trade that Hurts

[limpyhobbler]

“Uncertainty” is the pitchfork that corporations now effectively wield to prod politicians into action. It’s a threat, as in, if Congress doesn’t do this or that, such as avoid the fiscal cliff or raise the debt ceiling, then corporations will suffer the unbearable pain of “uncertainty.”

Uncertainty is really, really bad, business lobbyists lament. It’s a terrible thing to do to corporations, business commentators contend on talk shows.

They’re unconcerned, however, when the American middle class suffers uncertainty. Or when government action shifts uncertainty to the middle class. Trade is the perfect example of that. In 2000, Congress ended China’s uncertainty about trade with the United States by transferring that pain to America’s middle class. It was an excruciating loss of certainty for American workers because over the next seven years, millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs disappeared. That’s trade that hurts.

Here’s what happened: In October of 2000, the United States granted to China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR). That ended annual reviews of China’s trade status, during which Congress could change tariff levels on individual products.
...

via http://talkingunion.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/trade-that-hurts/

[dkf]

1. The difference is this...businesses react faster to uncertainty than individuals.

Individuals are remarkably complacent and may never even recognize their risks until it is upon them.

So uncertainty is more significant to businesses.

[Leslie Valley]

2. Well then FCUK BUSH even more!

n/t