'Buy American' Rider Sparks Trade Debate

[BrAinPaiNt]

LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012804002.html?hpid=topnews)

By Anthony Faiola
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 29, 2009; Page A01

The stimulus bill passed by the House last night contains a controversial provision that would mostly bar foreign steel and iron from the infrastructure projects laid out by the $819 billion economic package.

A Senate version, yet to be acted upon, goes further, requiring, with few exceptions, that all stimulus-funded projects use only American-made equipment and goods.

Proponents of expanding the "Buy American" provisions enacted during the Great Depression, including steel and iron manufacturers and labor unions, argue that it is the only way to ensure that the stimulus creates jobs at home and not overseas.

Opponents, including some of the biggest blue-chip names in American industry, say it amounts to a declaration of war against free trade. That, they say, could spark retaliation from abroad against U.S. companies and exacerbate the global financial crisis.

The provisions also confront President Obama with his first test on trade policy. He must weigh the potential consequences of U.S. protectionism against the appealing slogan of "Buy American" and the jobs argument.

The administration has not addressed the issue publicly, and sources close to the issue said it appears that a response is still being formulated.

"We're reviewing the Buy American plan proposal, and we are committed to a plan that will save or create at least 3 million jobs including jobs in manufacturing," White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

The proposals are meant to regenerate heavy manufacturing jobs in the United States by forcing government contractors to use domestic materials and equipment, even if they are more expensive. Yet U.S. industrial giants including Caterpillar, General Electric and the domestic aerospace industry are emerging as strong opponents.

The measures, they argue, could violate trade deals the United States has signed in recent years, including an agreement on expanding access to government procurements reached through the World Trade Organization. But most damaging, critics say, would be the "protectionist message" attached to imposing such barriers on foreign companies.

Nations including China and many in Europe are preparing to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on stimulus projects. American companies are angling for a piece of those pies, and retaliatory measures against U.S. companies, executives argue, could significantly complicate those efforts. This week, a European Commission spokesman threatened countermeasures if the Buy American provisions are approved.

"There is no company that is going to benefit more from the stimulus package than Caterpillar, but I am telling you that by embracing Buy American you are undermining our ability to export U.S. produced products overseas," said Bill Lane, government affairs director for Caterpillar in Washington. More than half of Caterpillar's sales -- including big-ticket items like construction cranes and land movers -- are sold overseas.

"Any student of history will tell you that one of the most significant mistakes of the 1930s is when the U.S. embraced protectionism," Lane said. "It had a cascading effect that ground world trade almost to a halt, and turned a one-year recession into the Great Depression."

There are early signs that nations are putting up trade barriers to protect domestic companies as the global downturn worsens. Despite promises offered during a major economic summit in November to refrain from taking such measures, countries from France to Indonesia have done so.

That, some argue, may be reason enough for the United States to follow suit. But in recent decades, the United States has stood out as the global champion of free trade; some analysts fear a move by Congress to restrict foreign companies from stimulus spending would mark an important shift away from that philosophy.

Supporters say expanded Buy American provisions could help ensure that the treasure trove of government contracts for new highways, schools, bridges and energy grids creates jobs at home instead of abroad. They note that much of the tax rebate checks that went out last year to stimulate the economy went to Chinese-made televisions and Korean-made refrigerators.

Until the global economy turned critical in the second half of last year, the domestic steel industry, for instance, was operating at near capacity and steel prices were climbing sky-high. Now, U.S. unemployment is soaring.

Factories in some top steel-producing states -- including Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Alabama -- are running at 45 percent capacity, with 40 percent of their workforce on furlough, or about 25,000 people, according to United Steelworkers union. Ensuring that U.S. steel and iron do not have to compete with, say, Chinese steel, for stimulus projects, industry officials say, could help get those workers back on the assembly line.

"What we're already seeing is that demand is going down, but imports of Chinese finished steel is going up because they are subsidizing it," said Thomas Gibson, president of the industry-funded American Iron and Steel Institute. "What we're saying is that this is a stimulus package to promote American jobs. We ought to maximize every dollar in that bill toward that end. If you were building a bridge in West Virginia, you wouldn't bring in German workers to do it. Materials should be no different."

Congress enacted the Buy American Act in 1933, establishing preferences for U.S.-made products in government contracts. In 1982, those preferences were made more strict for transportation and highway projects, although waivers have been granted.

The plans being considered by Congress, however, would greatly amplify and expand existing preferences for U.S. companies. The provision passed last night was introduced by Rep. Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.) and had won unanimous bipartisan support in committee. Among the few exceptions, use of U.S. steel or iron would need to drive up the cost of a project by 25 percent in order to allow a foreign substitute -- far more rigorous than current regulations. The House bill also contained a stipulation that the uniforms and other textiles used by the Transportation Security Administration be 100 percent American-made.

In the Senate, Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), is proposing a far broader measure that would exclude most foreign-made manufactured goods, again, with a few exceptions. In an interview Visclosky said he would be inclined to accept the broader Senate proposal as the two houses seek to compromise on the final language of the bill.

It's not protectionism, Dorgan said. Citing the massive U.S. trade deficit, he added, "and it's pretty hard for anyone to look at our trade situation and suggest that we are being unfair."

[sbark]

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/29/smells-like-smoot-hawley/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/01/29/smells-like-smoot-hawley/)

Smells like Smoot-Hawleyposted at 12:09 pm on January 29, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

As if the Democratic Porkfest Bill didn’t do enough damage on its own to the long-term prospects for the American economy, the Washington Post reports that it could set off a trade war that would bring the global economy crashing, too. Democratic protectionists loaded up the bill with “Buy American” clauses that shut out foreign producers of steel and iron. Just as in the Depression, however, that will force other nations to close their markets — which will virtually recreate the Smoot-Hawley fiasco that made the Depression exponentially worse:

hmmmmm........union industries...what a coincidence......

slowly coming out.........Can the Senate dream of cleaning all this crap out of this bill........

[sbark]

merge.......with B.Paints...

[masomenos]

Both sides have good arguments. Maybe the best thing to do is to require that a percentage of the material for infrastructure projects be purchased from American suppliers. Governments in other countries could in-act similar measures that would allow jobs to be created in the home country without severely affecting international trade. This is a pretty tricky situation.

[SuspectCorner]

Eco 101 - lower price of imports usually means gains of domestic consumers exceed losses of domestic producers. Yes, it puts a strain on employment and job search - but the overall economy is more efficient.

[sbark]

Eco 101 - lower price of imports usually means gains of domestic consumers exceed losses of domestic producers. Yes, it puts a strain on employment and job search - but the overall economy is more efficient.

........Econ 101........getting zero for exports doesnt help either..

Better Google Smoot Hawley.....and the effect on sending the world into the Great Depression........

the last thing we need right now is Protectionism and the shut down of world trade........if anything move to relax any trade restrictions would be the call of the day..........

printing dollars by the wheelbarrow load for STD research does not give confidence to those countries holding T-Bills by the billions...

[MetalHead]

........Econ 101........getting zero for exports doesnt help either..

Better Google Smoot Hawley.....and the effect on sending the world into the Great Depression........

the last thing we need right now is Protectionism and the shut down of world trade........if anything move to relax any trade restrictions would be the call of the day..........

printing dollars by the wheelbarrow load for STD research does not give confidence to those countries holding T-Bills by the billions...

How dare you question Suspect Corner??
Suspect sold his Encyclopedia Brittanica...he knows EVERYTHING.

[SuspectCorner]

........Econ 101........getting zero for exports doesnt help either..

Better Google Smoot Hawley.....and the effect on sending the world into the Great Depression........

the last thing we need right now is Protectionism and the shut down of world trade........if anything move to relax any trade restrictions would be the call of the day..........

printing dollars by the wheelbarrow load for STD research does not give confidence to those countries holding T-Bills by the billions...

Exports is one of the few areas that have kept our heads above water over 2008. My first reply to the threadstarter definitely didn't advocate protectionism. And STD research is the least of my problems with the Obama package. All those tax cuts conceded to the "voodoo economics gang" on the right - those represent my problems with the package.

[ThaBigP]

The problem with protectionism is that a single nation is never the total of those participating. The minute we slam on tariffs (or bar imports outright), the world will be forced to reciprocate. And....we don't produce anything anymore. I really don't think people realize what would happen if we could no longer bring in imports. You think you can buy a cell phone? Computer? Gas? A camera? Sugar? Anything made with sugar? Anything made with cocoa? Coffee? Tea? And that's just off the top of my head. Everything we buy is either imported or made with or from imported parts. Perhaps corn, wheat, beef and chicken is the only thing I can think of that we do produce in quantity without relying on imports. Oh, but WAIT! Fertilizer is a petroleum product! We have to import that! ...as are plastics...damn this gets worse the more I think about it.

Good luck on that.

[ThaBigP]

Exports is one of the few areas that have kept our heads above water over 2008. My first reply to the threadstarter definitely didn't advocate protectionism. And STD research is the least of my problems with the Obama package. All those tax cuts conceded to the "voodoo economics gang" on the right - those represent my problems with the package.

Wrong thread, Suspect. It's Econ as in "economics"...not an electronics convention.

[SuspectCorner]

The problem with protectionism is that a single nation is never the total of those participating. The minute we slam on tariffs (or bar imports outright), the world will be forced to reciprocate. And....we don't produce anything anymore. I really don't think people realize what would happen if we could no longer bring in imports. You think you can buy a cell phone? Computer? Gas? A camera? Sugar? Anything made with sugar? Anything made with cocoa? Coffee? Tea? And that's just off the top of my head. Everything we buy is either imported or made with or from imported parts. Perhaps corn, wheat, beef and chicken is the only thing I can think of that we do produce in quantity without relying on imports. Oh, but WAIT! Fertilizer is a petroleum product! We have to import that! ...as are plastics...damn this gets worse the more I think about it.

Good luck on that.

Yep. Protectionism and protectionism-as-a-bargaining-chip trade policies have a tendency to blow up in your face.

[ThaBigP]

Yep. Protectionism and protectionism-as-a-bargaining-chip trade policies have a tendency to blow up in your face.

Here we stand in total agreement. Must have stepped through the wormhole created by that large collider...somehow before they flipped the switch on. But that's what happens when you start messing with spacetime. :cool:

[SuspectCorner]

Here we stand in total agreement. Must have stepped through the wormhole created by that large collider...somehow before they flipped the switch on. But that's what happens when you start messing with spacetime. :cool:

Darn those wormholes.

[ScipioCowboy]

Darn those wormholes.

zhlSImR_Vyo

[ThaBigP]

zhlSImR_Vyo

:cool: I remember "bald lady's" rack beeboppin' in slow mo on that scene.

[Kangaroo]

The problem with protectionism is that a single nation is never the total of those participating. The minute we slam on tariffs (or bar imports outright), the world will be forced to reciprocate. And....we don't produce anything anymore. I really don't think people realize what would happen if we could no longer bring in imports. You think you can buy a cell phone? Computer? Gas? A camera? Sugar? Anything made with sugar? Anything made with cocoa? Coffee? Tea? And that's just off the top of my head. Everything we buy is either imported or made with or from imported parts. Perhaps corn, wheat, beef and chicken is the only thing I can think of that we do produce in quantity without relying on imports. Oh, but WAIT! Fertilizer is a petroleum product! We have to import that! ...as are plastics...damn this gets worse the more I think about it.

Good luck on that.

I am not sure this country can make a dam thing any more

We use to be one of the largest steel manufactures in the world but the Unions balked at technology upgrades because it would cost jobs now Gary Indian mostly a shell of what it was when it came to steel mills. The Japanese moved on to computerized Steel and so forth being more efficient so eventually it all crashed down on the Union Morons in Indiana and that City is no a crime ridden infestation of nothing


This country has put itself into the toilet all on it's own with crap like this

[SuspectCorner]

I am not sure this country can make a dam thing any more

We use to be one of the largest steel manufactures in the world but the Unions balked at technology upgrades because it would cost jobs now Gary Indian mostly a shell of what it was when it came to steel mills. The Japanese moved on to computerized Steel and so forth being more efficient so eventually it all crashed down on the Union Morons in Indiana and that City is no a crime ridden infestation of nothing


This country has put itself into the toilet all on it's own with crap like this

It's all about the "job search". We are no longer a production-based economy and folks need to get used to that idea. Americans should prolly do everything they can to prepare themselves for, and seek, those jobs that take advantage of the markets where the US enjoys a comparative advantage over our trade partners. Steel production just ain't one of them. We can't roll back the calendar to 1960.

[Kangaroo]

It's all about the "job search". We are no longer a production-based economy and folks need to get used to that idea. Americans should prolly do everything they can to prepare themselves for, and seek, those jobs that take advantage of the markets where the US enjoys a comparative advantage over our trade partners. Steel production just ain't one of them. We can't roll back the calendar to 1960.

It was a self inflicted gunshot wound that cause the issue. I disagree if we get back to some simple things I believe we can compete in those markets but we have to get out of our own way to make it happen.

Currently about the only thing we hold an edge in that I see is finding oil and gas and coming up with innovative ways of doing it.

Things like horizontal drilling and drilling two horizontal shafts in to the same well from different angles and linking them up to get great asset that where near impossible to access before.

Flooding all fields with CO2 for next to nothing and getting tons of resources they could never get to before.

I mean outside that what does this country do well. I guess watch Big Screen TV's and max out our credit expenditures.

I mean what else do we do

[notherbob]

It was a self inflicted gunshot wound that cause the issue. I disagree if we get back to some simple things I believe we can compete in those markets but we have to get out of our own way to make it happen.

Currently about the only thing we hold an edge in that I see is finding oil and gas and coming up with innovative ways of doing it.

Things like horizontal drilling and drilling two horizontal shafts in to the same well from different angles and linking them up to get great asset that where near impossible to access before.

Flooding all fields with CO2 for next to nothing and getting tons of resources they could never get to before.

I mean outside that what does this country do well. I guess watch Big Screen TV's and max out our credit expenditures.

I mean what else do we do

We are consumers, we spend money. That's what we have become but nobody thought about where the money came from that we spent so freely without a thought to the future.

We must all flip more hamburgers and patronize other hamburger flippers.

We are no longer a goods-producing economy, we are an economy based on producing services without intrinsic value.

[SuspectCorner]

It was a self inflicted gunshot wound that cause the issue. I disagree if we get back to some simple things I believe we can compete in those markets but we have to get out of our own way to make it happen.

Currently about the only thing we hold an edge in that I see is finding oil and gas and coming up with innovative ways of doing it.

Things like horizontal drilling and drilling two horizontal shafts in to the same well from different angles and linking them up to get great asset that where near impossible to access before.

Flooding all fields with CO2 for next to nothing and getting tons of resources they could never get to before.

I mean outside that what does this country do well. I guess watch Big Screen TV's and max out our credit expenditures.

I mean what else do we do

Technology, technology, technology... the natural resources of Japan amount to saltwater. As an island nation - they have plenty of it, too. But who can argue their world standing as an economic power?

The US needs to further their technological edge in the world via increased and more efficient investment in our educational system - while developing new technologies like (gasp) green energy. Also, one of the biggest cost centers in US production is healthcare. The other developed countries of the world already have universal healthcare - largely eliminating that factor as a production cost to foreign firms.

[SuspectCorner]

I'd like to add that the system overly compensates those folks working in the financial markets. Their work, it seems, largely involves creating money by devising complicated financial schemes that amount to little more than artifice. In short, they are producing nothing - unless you count the moneypit they've left for the American taxpayer. Let's remove most of incentive for bandits and encourage the educated to seek useful (even if less gainful) employment.

[Kangaroo]

Technology, technology, technology... the natural resources of Japan amount to saltwater. As an island nation - they have plenty of it, too. But who can argue their world standing as an economic power?

The US needs to further their technological edge in the world via increased and more efficient investment in our educational system - while developing new technologies like (gasp) green energy. Also, one of the biggest cost centers in US production is healthcare. The other developed countries of the world already have universal healthcare - largely eliminating that factor as a production cost to foreign firms.

yet the hospital I work at makes millions of dollars a year from the same foreign people that have free healthcare they fly their kids over to the US for a reason they can actually get what they need in specialist in the US. Their own country can do nothing for them.

I wonder why

I wonder if you realize China no longer covers everyone for Healthcare anymore they could not afford as a country to provide it for everyone anymore.

[SuspectCorner]

yet the hospital I work at makes millions of dollars a year from the same foreign people that have free healthcare they fly their kids over to the US for a reason they can actually get what they need in specialist in the US. Their own country can do nothing for them.

I wonder why

I wonder if you realize China no longer covers everyone for Healthcare anymore they could not afford as a country to provide it for everyone anymore.





Beijing Plans Health Care For Everyone

By MEI FONG and JASON LEOW ~ OCTOBER 20, 2008 (The Wall Street Journal)

BEIJING -- China has unveiled an ambitious plan to achieve universal health care. The plan, released for public debate last week, lays out in broad strokes plans to introduce greater health-care funding and control prices. The current system leaves out much of the population and forces the rest to pay heavy out-of-pocket expenses.

Overhauling China's health-care system has global significance, given the country's demographic heft, its frequent role as epicenter of infectious diseases and its growing importance in health innovations ranging from organ donation to the use of traditional Chinese medicine.

"What happens in China is a major driver in the dynamics of global health," said medical journal Lancet.

The overall goal of the plan is to cover 90% of the population within two years and achieve universal health care by 2020.

One major point in the draft is to return to the nonprofit motive for national health care. This was dismantled in the 1980s as China cut public services, especially in the countryside.

Today, public hospitals receive little government funding and are pressed to operate like businesses. The peddling of experimental, costly drugs and treatments has become rampant.

Out-of-pocket payments constituted more than 60% of health spending at the end of the 1990s in China, a significantly larger percentage than in developed countries, according to the World Health Organization.

The draft proposal was crafted in a year-long process of consultations with groups such as the World Health Organization, the World Bank, management consultancy McKinsey & Co. and a few Chinese university-based public health experts.

According to the plan, all revenue raised by public hospitals will have to be funneled to state coffers. The government aims to set pricing standards for medical services, according to the plan, reflecting broad nationalization of the health-care system.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism. The current draft "is also hard for experts to understand," said Gordon Liu, an economist at the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University. Robert Pollard, director of Synovate Healthcare, a Beijing-based medical consultancy, said the plan doesn't give sufficient details on funding and implementation.

The plan doesn't address how the government would pay for its nationalization program if hospitals are restrained from earning more and tax collection mechanisms remain weak.

So far, the draft has drawn a large number of comments -- more than 12,000 -- on the state planning commission's Web site.

—Kersten Zhang contributed to this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445443885248287.html


Forbes Online - Market Scan

China Takes A Stab At Universal Health Care

Tina Wang, 01.22.09, 11:45 AM ET


The Chinese government is hoping that if the country's social safety net is stronger, its people will feel secure enough to spend more, which is badly needed to help offset the global demand slump. Beijing wants to expand basic health coverage to most of the population by 2011 and it is willing to spend the billions needed to do so. Leaders are betting that the ambitious program will help stave off social unrest, as the country slows to its weakest pace of growth in seven years.

China's State Council approved a plan Wednesday to spend 850 billion yuan ($124.3 billion) in the next three years to reform the country's troubled health care system. Measures include expanding health insurance coverage to 90% of the populace and overhauling woefully inadequate public hospitals. People should have more affordable access to better-quality basic medical services by 2011, according to a Web statement. State news agency Xinhua cited "public criticism" of lack of access to health care as prompting the government to act.

"It's not a bad idea for the government to provide health insurance for the population, so people don't have to save as much money for the rainy days. They feel that they are taken care of. So they'd be more willing to spend the money and stimulate the economy," said Hong Kong-based Tai Fook Research analyst Paul Lee. China has an unusually high savings rate, given its rate of its economic growth. Beijing has been trying to boost domestic demand to compensate for the export slump that has caused waves of layoffs in China's manufacturing heart and slowed the economy to 6.8% growth in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Health care was neglected when Deng Xiaoping launched pro-market reforms in the early 1980s. The government took apart the communist model, which covered most health care for households, and shifted costs onto consumers and hospitals. Many Chinese must pay upfront and out of pocket for services at hospitals, which charge high fees but are still cash-strapped, as local governments divert funding elsewhere.

With various details still unspecified, the government's plan is to provide annual health subsidies to citizens as well as to implement a system to deliver vital drugs and vaccines. If the government uses China's insurance companies as a vehicle to expand coverage, it does not necessarily mean they will profit from it, Lee said. Some previous government insurance programs were designed merely to guarantee that insurers do not incur losses, though the downside is that the companies' capital gets tied up, he added.

The new plan is part of Beijing's strategy to narrow the stark urban-rural health gap: cities have gleaming hospitals, while some remote villages still rely on "barefoot doctors," rural residents who have bare-bones medical training to provide basic services to neighbors and nearby communities.

In 2007, the World Health Organization ranked China's health system as 144th in terms of quality and access, out of 190 countries, below far poorer countries like Haiti.

In Shanghai trading Thursday, Ping An Insurance added 5 fen (1 cent), or 0.2%, to 29.33 yuan ($4.29). China Life Insurance lost 10 fen (1 cent), or 0.5%, to 20.20 yuan ($2.95).

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/china-health-care-markets-econ-cx_twdd_0122markets04.html

[Kangaroo]

Beijing Plans Health Care For Everyone

By MEI FONG and JASON LEOW ~ OCTOBER 20, 2008 (The Wall Street Journal)

BEIJING -- China has unveiled an ambitious plan to achieve universal health care. The plan, released for public debate last week, lays out in broad strokes plans to introduce greater health-care funding and control prices. The current system leaves out much of the population and forces the rest to pay heavy out-of-pocket expenses.

Overhauling China's health-care system has global significance, given the country's demographic heft, its frequent role as epicenter of infectious diseases and its growing importance in health innovations ranging from organ donation to the use of traditional Chinese medicine.

"What happens in China is a major driver in the dynamics of global health," said medical journal Lancet.

The overall goal of the plan is to cover 90% of the population within two years and achieve universal health care by 2020.

One major point in the draft is to return to the nonprofit motive for national health care. This was dismantled in the 1980s as China cut public services, especially in the countryside.

Today, public hospitals receive little government funding and are pressed to operate like businesses. The peddling of experimental, costly drugs and treatments has become rampant.

Out-of-pocket payments constituted more than 60% of health spending at the end of the 1990s in China, a significantly larger percentage than in developed countries, according to the World Health Organization.

The draft proposal was crafted in a year-long process of consultations with groups such as the World Health Organization, the World Bank, management consultancy McKinsey & Co. and a few Chinese university-based public health experts.

According to the plan, all revenue raised by public hospitals will have to be funneled to state coffers. The government aims to set pricing standards for medical services, according to the plan, reflecting broad nationalization of the health-care system.

The proposal has drawn heavy criticism. The current draft "is also hard for experts to understand," said Gordon Liu, an economist at the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University. Robert Pollard, director of Synovate Healthcare, a Beijing-based medical consultancy, said the plan doesn't give sufficient details on funding and implementation.

The plan doesn't address how the government would pay for its nationalization program if hospitals are restrained from earning more and tax collection mechanisms remain weak.

So far, the draft has drawn a large number of comments -- more than 12,000 -- on the state planning commission's Web site.

—Kersten Zhang contributed to this article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122445443885248287.html


Forbes Online - Market Scan

China Takes A Stab At Universal Health Care

Tina Wang, 01.22.09, 11:45 AM ET


The Chinese government is hoping that if the country's social safety net is stronger, its people will feel secure enough to spend more, which is badly needed to help offset the global demand slump. Beijing wants to expand basic health coverage to most of the population by 2011 and it is willing to spend the billions needed to do so. Leaders are betting that the ambitious program will help stave off social unrest, as the country slows to its weakest pace of growth in seven years.

China's State Council approved a plan Wednesday to spend 850 billion yuan ($124.3 billion) in the next three years to reform the country's troubled health care system. Measures include expanding health insurance coverage to 90% of the populace and overhauling woefully inadequate public hospitals. People should have more affordable access to better-quality basic medical services by 2011, according to a Web statement. State news agency Xinhua cited "public criticism" of lack of access to health care as prompting the government to act.

"It's not a bad idea for the government to provide health insurance for the population, so people don't have to save as much money for the rainy days. They feel that they are taken care of. So they'd be more willing to spend the money and stimulate the economy," said Hong Kong-based Tai Fook Research analyst Paul Lee. China has an unusually high savings rate, given its rate of its economic growth. Beijing has been trying to boost domestic demand to compensate for the export slump that has caused waves of layoffs in China's manufacturing heart and slowed the economy to 6.8% growth in the fourth quarter of 2008.

Health care was neglected when Deng Xiaoping launched pro-market reforms in the early 1980s. The government took apart the communist model, which covered most health care for households, and shifted costs onto consumers and hospitals. Many Chinese must pay upfront and out of pocket for services at hospitals, which charge high fees but are still cash-strapped, as local governments divert funding elsewhere.

With various details still unspecified, the government's plan is to provide annual health subsidies to citizens as well as to implement a system to deliver vital drugs and vaccines. If the government uses China's insurance companies as a vehicle to expand coverage, it does not necessarily mean they will profit from it, Lee said. Some previous government insurance programs were designed merely to guarantee that insurers do not incur losses, though the downside is that the companies' capital gets tied up, he added.

The new plan is part of Beijing's strategy to narrow the stark urban-rural health gap: cities have gleaming hospitals, while some remote villages still rely on "barefoot doctors," rural residents who have bare-bones medical training to provide basic services to neighbors and nearby communities.

In 2007, the World Health Organization ranked China's health system as 144th in terms of quality and access, out of 190 countries, below far poorer countries like Haiti.

In Shanghai trading Thursday, Ping An Insurance added 5 fen (1 cent), or 0.2%, to 29.33 yuan ($4.29). China Life Insurance lost 10 fen (1 cent), or 0.5%, to 20.20 yuan ($2.95).

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/china-health-care-markets-econ-cx_twdd_0122markets04.html

Funny they have a 12 year plan to try and cover everyone and the main reason seems to prevent a revolt.

[iceberg]

Both sides have good arguments. Maybe the best thing to do is to require that a percentage of the material for infrastructure projects be purchased from American suppliers. Governments in other countries could in-act similar measures that would allow jobs to be created in the home country without severely affecting international trade. This is a pretty tricky situation.

i think we're pretty open with our trade as it is. if in a time of crisis we decide to spend our money on ourselves, i'm fine with that.

india has enough american jobs now as it is.

[ConcordCowboy]

smells-like-smoot-hawley


http://pervegalit.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/ben-stein.jpg...In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.

[ThaBigP]

Technology, technology, technology... the natural resources of Japan amount to saltwater. As an island nation - they have plenty of it, too. But who can argue their world standing as an economic power?

The US needs to further their technological edge in the world via increased and more efficient investment in our educational system - while developing new technologies like (gasp) green energy. Also, one of the biggest cost centers in US production is healthcare. The other developed countries of the world already have universal healthcare - largely eliminating that factor as a production cost to foreign firms.

A huge fact that many people who are too mired in the teeny tiney picture seem to miss is that there is but one true natural resource of any consequence...human labor. You see, Japan has plenty of that, along with ingenuity. Sure, they have not the material to dig out of the ground. But sell them stuff you dig out of your ground, their people will tinker with it a while and sell you back a really cool product you are willing to part with money to obtain. How do you think stuff dug out of the ground gets turned into a cell phone or computer, after all? It don't come out of the ground that way.

Furthermore, if you understand this premise you'll begin to see the world a bit differently...many 3rd world countries are sitting on gold mines (literally as well as figuratively) in regards to natural resources. But what of it? So many of them are so torn by political and social strife that nobody is in any condition (or in many cases allowed to) dig it out of the ground and hammer it into useful products. It's not the unequal distribution of "resources" from a material standpoint that causes economic disparity...it's the unequal distribution of liberty to be free to harness your own ingenuity to hammer stuff dug out of the ground into things people will pay for and can use.

[JBond]

I'd like to add that the system overly compensates those folks working in the financial markets. Their work, it seems, largely involves creating money by devising complicated financial schemes that amount to little more than artifice. In short, they are producing nothing - unless you count the moneypit they've left for the American taxpayer. Let's remove most of incentive for bandits and encourage the educated to seek useful (even if less gainful) employment.

That is a discussion I would love to watch you and theogt have.:D

[burmafrd]

Its human potential and knowldege that is the most critical resource anymore. UNFORTUNATELY our school system at the primary level sucks so bad that we are wasting it terribly.