Is Clinton resposible for the label "China" being on all of our goods?

Question

I am pissed that our hardest working Americans had their jobs sold to China for a quick buck, and I am trying to pinpoint who is most responsible for this so I can find someone to hate. From most of the things I have read, Clinton is the most responsible. He signed deals with China to let their country host our businesses that now make most American goods. Reagan is not responsible for it as my father got his blue-collared job in '84 during Reagan's tenure as President and that was a time when you could get a decent job without going to college.

Answer 1

He had to do it. It was the only way he could shield the fact that his taxes were killing the American economy creating an illusion that he stimulated it.

Answer 2

My friend things are not as simple as you think! The main reason for this all is Globalization! How do you expect a country like ours to support this big term but yet would not compromise! The compromise was through launching some new factories in China! That's from one point of view, beside that you have to remember that China is the sleeping giant, who is communist! What is better to keep a giant asleep more than some little factories! Capitalism against communism is a continuous war and it seems that every president to come would do anything to say that capitalism is better and will always win! Don't miss understand me, but look at Canada that would never interfere in someone else’s politics and their factories remain in their country! It's not Clinton’s mistake and it's not going to be any president's, it's all about when are we going to stop interfering and when are we going to say America first, we do not want Globalization!

Answer 3

While Billy did indeed sign the deal. It was on the request of those very same businesses that wished to do business in China. They are partly to blame, but the American consumer is just as much to blame.

I remember Levis being one of the last North American made only jeans producers to move to Chinese and Indonesiam production. American made was something they, like you and I, saw to mean something more than simply just a label on a garment. It meant you were supporting your economy and the people who worked hard in that economy to provide you with that item.

But then with the influx of other jean manufacturers that had already made the move to these countries. Levis found it harder to continue to justify remaining in Canada and the US, with their high wage structure for their workers. That is part of the problem. The other part was the actual consumer. When it came down to it. The average consumer couldn't care less where it was made, all that mattered to them was the price. Levis cost $89 (here in Canada) for a pair of jeans. Why would anyone buy a single pair for $89? When they could buy 2 or 3 pairs of equal quality for the same price or less from companies that had their sourcing in China or elsewhere. So Levis finally pulled the plug on North American operations and are now China/Indonesia based.

China has little to no regard for worker salaries in these factories. All that is important is getting the work done, for the least amount of cost to the parent company. The problem is once one company does it, another is pretty much compelled to as well or risk financial ruin because they can't compete in the market. I remember when I worked for a company here, I was contacted by a broker for one such sourcing company in China. They offered an 80% reduction in sourcing costs afforded to production. Any company looks at that and sees the ability to cut costs, combined with the ability to keep current prices the same (even though they're getting an 80% increase in profit share per their particular lines). As companies are Primarily in the business of making money? Is it any wonder why so many are making the move?

National pride doesn't get you anywhere when it comes to doing business.

The only way we can change this trend is to place tarriffs on those good produced in China and others third world nations, enough to offset the savings incurred by the production of said goods. Then use that money to support those national industries remaining to continue to provide jobs here. But that won't ever happen!

Indeed, I'd bet most manufacturing in North America will cease to exist by 2020, if not sooner, as China/etc. becomes the worlds new manufacturing center and we are forced to change our economies to service/research based ones. But it'll put hundreds of thousands out of work, as it has already has begun to.

Answer 4

I was a business man & if China could supply me with what my business needed at the same quelity at a cheaper price, why should I not buy from them. They only export to this country what the American people want. why should I buy some thing made in America at Wal- Mart. or Target for $50 when I could buy the same thing made in China, Korea or Twiaan fore $20. I like saving money. Isnt that the game. Bush SR. opened the door a little & yes Clinton opened it wide.But if the products do not sell China will not have a market.Dont blame them , Blame Us.

Answer 5

It actually probably goes clear back to Nixon. Every President since then has opened things up with China a little bit more. It's just an evolutionary step in the global marketplace, no reason to hate, just find another line of work besides putting crap together on an assembly line.

Answer 6

Clinton may have encouraged it, but more the responsibility falls back to Greedy owners of businesses. They have more loyalty toward the $$ than anything else, including their employees. The same is true with the company I work for, who views the employee as a neccessary evil rather than a benefit to the company.

Answer 7

I am guessing you already hated Clinton, so it was easy for you to place the blame on him for this. As your proof, your Dad got a job in 1984 so it must be Clinton's fault. That is some fine economics analysis.

Answer 8

No. Unions are ultimately responsible. They pushed up the cost of labor in America to the point that it made sense to move more and more production overseas: to Japan, then, as Japan's labor became more expensive, to, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Mexico, etc.

Then, China, via foreign investment and an artificially weak Yuan, undercut other cheap-labor countries and became the slave-labor manufacturing nexus of the world.

Answer 9

Yes. Since Clinton was bought and paid for by the Chinese Government, naturally, he spearheaded efforts to allow Chinese goods (junk) to flood into our country by relaxing tariffs.

Answer 10

Now, this is new, a Republican blaming Clinton for endorsing free trade.