Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

American Corporations Getting Rich Abroad

By Robert B. Reich, TomPaine.com. Posted May 18, 2007.


America's largest corporations' overseas subsidiaries are booming even as their American operations stagnate. General Electric expects more than half its revenue this year to come from outside the U.S. for the first time.

I'm spending my spare time these days debating supply-siders who are convinced that the record-breaking Dow proves the correctness of the Bush tax cuts.

Yes, the Dow did reach a record high last month. But the Commerce Department also reported that economic growth slowed to its weakest pace in four years. How can investors do so well while the real economy is doing so poorly? My supply-side friends don't have an answer, but I do.

It's because of two great decouplings that have occurred in recent years. First, the rest of the worlds' major economies have decoupled from the United States' economy. China, India, Japan and Europe are now such large markets, they can grow briskly even as America slows.

Second, America's largest corporations have decoupled from the United States. Their overseas subsidiaries are booming even as their American operations stagnate. General Electric expects more than half its revenue this year to come from outside the United States for the first time. More than half of Boeing's new orders are from overseas. Ford is struggling in America but doing well in Europe.

In other words, the president's supply-side tax cuts are great for America's global investors, who have been investing their extra money around the world -- either in foreign companies or in global American-based ones.

But little or nothing is trickling down to average working Americans. Half of U.S. households do own some shares of stock, usually through their IRAs or 401Ks. But the vast majority own less than $5,000 worth. Their equity is in their homes, whose values have slumped. They're paying far more for health insurance and fuel. And their wages haven't kept up.

Bottom line: The Bush tax cuts have delivered for Wall Street but done zilch for America's Main Streets.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: fda, corporations, economy

Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.



Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
American in Name Only
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 18, 2007 12:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
GE has been exporting jobs hard and fast since the long tenure of 'Neutron' Jack Welch and continues unabated. GE's corporate culture has no loyalty to anything but the bottom line- period. With NBC/CNBC/MSNBC as little more than house organs for the corporatist BS propaganda machine, they have protected themselves and their political interests well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: American in Name Only Posted by: weatherking
» RE: American in Name Only Posted by: NoPCZone
Prepare for the coming implosion
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 18, 2007 1:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All that debt building up while the rats jump ship and take their capital with them.

Maybe the military's tactical nukes should be retargeted toward corporate headquarters? They're doing more damage to America than any foreign power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yeah... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Yeah... Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Yeah... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Yeah... Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Agreed, but... Posted by: EagleMB
» RE: Yeah... Posted by: edgar_michel
» RE: Yeah... Posted by: EagleMB
Europeans are buying Fords?
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 18, 2007 2:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go figure.

Do European cars suck so bad that they would settle for American? Japanese is the way to go, but thanks for the support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: uropeans are buying Fords? Posted by: mgloraine
market money
Posted by: solrev on May 18, 2007 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much of the tax cuts for the rich go directly into the stock market. The vast debt of Iraq is laundered into the stock market. Baby boomers are maximizing 401’s and co’s match in retirement. The bubble burst will occur in 2012 when the baby boomers drop out and start asking for money back. The global corps will be ready to jump ship by then, heavily invested in the new market places being developed now. It is the best thing that can happen to us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: market money Posted by: Leman
To be fair the policies have have mixed results. Some good, some bad.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on May 18, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) tax receipts for this past year was the largest in history, according to the IRS.
2) the DOW is high.
3) allowing corporations to move across borders promotes internationalism and globalism.
Having said that, the negative:
1) the dollar is weak. SO, in real terms is the DOW really 'that high' and are the 'receipts' worth that much?
2) the government, and many Democrats/Republicans, support open-borders and thusly movement of corporations should not be a problem. If anything it supports the position of the May-1 protesters as corporations are people, legally, and so should not be held in by any artificial, racist border.
3) same reasoning. Corporations have no loyalty to any 'country'. Of course, this is also in congruence with modern-thinking progressives in that 'countries' or 'borders' are artifically created by colonialism and classist/racist reasons and we should worry/act on a global level in the fight for human rights, protecting Gaia against warming, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who needs an IRA when you can have a SUV!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on May 18, 2007 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is a bit of an over simplification of the issues involved..

Supply side tax cuts are definitely the reason the economy is doing well. Business need incentives to compete with foreign companies who’s cost basis is much lower. If businesses aren’t healthy, employment drops. Tax incentives are what American businesses need to help in many cases.

The comment about house values slumping is really meaningless.. anyone who has bought their house more than 4 years ago is still ahead of the game and their equity is more than intact.

House values were over heated in most areas anyway and increases on 20% per year were common.. Many areas are still holding their values while Fla, La. etc have slowed down – but that said this in no way affects most Americans daily spending.

About American savings one only need to look in many driveways of middle class Americans to see more than 2 cars and then obligatory $40,000 plus gas guzzling SUV.. it all depends on where you want to put your money.. into “toys” or IRA’s.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great posts.. Posted by: Conservasaurus
Globalization and stuff
Posted by: Doubtom on May 18, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Personally I think the move towards globalization is less about sharing with the world than it is a very late attempt to ward off the teeming hordes who are on the edge of converting their unrest into action all over the world. You can see the signs in our own hemisphere if you look southward.

The world at large is weary if not bone tired of the American way, which has always been about the bottom line for us at the expense of everyone else on earth.

That this new venture called globalization will end up hurting America is of little to no concern to the elite of the world. Like Murdoch, the allegiance of the elite shifts with their needs.
As history amptly records, you can only hold off the peasants at the gates for a while until it all comes crashing down.

Maybe that's why the Bush dynasty is securing real estate in Paraguay.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Globalization and stuff Posted by: blookanoo
Eat the Rich
Posted by: WitchyNy on May 18, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalism is the problem. We need to stop having profit based systems and have environmental and people first systems.

Most Americans are just going along-as long as there is enough pizza and beer and the TV sports shows are on-

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: at the Rich Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: Eat the Rich Posted by: lessbread
» RE: at the Rich Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: at the Rich Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: at the Rich Posted by: Tubeguru
» RE: at the Rich Posted by: wmGreybeard
» RE: at the Rich Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» RE: at the Rich Posted by: dockboy
The Bush nuclear deal with India is a good example...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 18, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here we have the President and a Republican Congress signing off on a deal that will transfer nuclear technology to a state that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, while pursuing a military assault on Iran (a signatory to the treaty) over nuclear issues. Under the deal, India would still be able to keep its nuclear weapon sites from being inspected.

Why would Bush try and sign such a deal? The profits are guaranteed to go to the likes of General Electric and Bechtel. Why would Buysh be pushing so hard for a new round of nuclear weapons production at Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos? It's pretty obvious that the driving force is the guaranteed billions from those contracts.

US civilian nuclear team seeks Indian partners
Anil Sasi New Delhi March 5

A high-powered US civilian nuclear delegation led by General Electric, Westinghouse, PSEG Nuclear, Bechtel and United States Enrichment Corporation Inc (USEC) is in the country to discuss possible collaborations with Indian firms and chalk out a roadmap for future engagements in the wake of the Indo-US civilian nuclear deal.

The nuclear mission, a sub-delegation of a 38-company US-India Business Council (USIBC) Executive Mission that is on a five-day visit to India starting March 5, has on board a host of nuclear power companies, high-technology contractors and equipment suppliers.

The nuclear mission is slated to meet officials from the Department of Atomic Energy, NTPC and BHEL.

The delegation would leave for Mumbai to take part in the second leg of discussions with the top brass of Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) and representatives of private sector firms that are planning nuclear forays.

Mr Tim Richards, GE's International Energy Policy Director, and Mr Rao Mandava of Westinghouse are part of the delegation.


Bush works for his base - the CEOs and major shareholders of the world's biggest corporate conglomerates. The only widespread political support he has is from the brainwashed and tragically uninformed religious right, who don't even realize that they're being taken for a ride.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I leave my house so that I can go across town and work, to make evil profits...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 18, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...that I use to buy evil food, evil toothpaste, and evil shampoo.

I don't begrudge a corporation for going to South Korea to do the same, "evilly".

Sinners.

The lot of us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capitalist Pig-dog!!! Posted by: Illiteratilumen
A trade war with China...
Posted by: Temporary on May 18, 2007 9:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
might cool things down, especially when these talks with China and INDIA COLLAPSE!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Supply side economics is nonsense
Posted by: Democritus on May 18, 2007 10:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Supply side economics enriches the few at the expense of the many. Globalization just smothers what is left of the middle class. A purposely weak dollar helps corporations sell their goods abroad, but it results in quiet inflation at home. Just plan a trip abroad to see how far your dollar goes. People think that just because they can buy cheap Chinese goods that they're doing all right. They forget that these goods, and our foreign wars, are floated by gigantic borrowing from China and Japan. Sooner or later the party will be over. The rich will hunker down in their mansions and yachts, and the poor will be picking up garbage from dumpsters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A six-point plan for individual economic survival in the United States
Posted by: TheTruthSeeker on May 18, 2007 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Buy a reliable 10-speed bicycle for everyday transportation.
2. Learn how to read Chinese so you can repair your bike.
3. Always shop at Goodwill.
4. Learn how to speak Spanish so Goodwill clerks can assist you.
5. Apply for every credit card possible and take cash advances to the hilt.
6. Take your money to Oregon, assume an alias, buy a house trailer and go salmon fishing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That SO sucks Posted by: Bobsays
America, The Champions Globalism!
Posted by: edgar_michel on May 18, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA, WTO are good for business. Free trade is good for competition, right? Taking away tariffs gives the American public greater buying power, right? What happened to fair labor practices, environmental controls, health care provisions, and representative government? Have any of these global marketing schemes benefited America in the long run? Have any of these global marketing schemes benefited the World in the long run? We now have a few ultra rich families in America and untold numbers of families struggling just to pay bills and another untold numbers of families slipping off the edge into homelessness. Third world nations have not benefited from this scheme, but have found the little hope they had of climbing out of poverty evaporating before their eyes. Global Warming! America's oil production began to go into depletion in 1970 and in 1973 as a result of Americas support for Israel, OPEC embargoed America, Congress printed gasoline ration tickets, lines formed at gas stations and then OPEC lifted the embargo, the Alyeska pipeline went on line, North Sea Oil proved phenomenal and the specter of oil shortage was forgotten. Instead of restricting oil consumption during the following decades, the American government promoted the idea that oil would never run out. Big cars replaced the small cars, Hummers came into being and the oil industry was going gangbusters. New dynasties of the ultra wealthy were forming. No one remembered the oil embargo of 1973. Everyone forgot that America’s oil production was in a permanent state of depletion. Sure America still produces more than a third of the oil she consumes, but America was never again an oil exporter. Given that scenario, wouldn’t it have been better for America to acknowledge that she was no longer in a position to provide natural resources to the third world in exchange for finished goods. Shouldn't America have focused on becoming a net exporter of finished goods rather than continue to wallow in the fantasy of her past of natural resource abundance? Shouldn’t she have protected her industries so that when her natural resource reserves began to falter, she would have the skills necessary to craft products the rest of the world would covet? When it was discovered by American scientists that global warming could threaten the earth's system of life, shouldn't America have busied herself with the task of providing the world with the next generation of energy resources? No the oil corporations of America wished only to perpetuate their pretensions of the glory years by commandeering resources from around the world to compensate for the reality that America was no longer wallowing in natural resources. Generations of Americans grew up during that flush of American wealth and were led to believe that this wealth would continue forever. Now reality is coming home to roost. Global warming is threatening the world, and America has no answers, only aggression. Oil depletion is a glaring reality and America can provide no assurance to the world that there are other sources, only Wal-Mart and it’s capacity to exploit world labor markets. Had America continued to support their workforce and respect the rivers and streams, the meadows and mountains, the fish and animals, and most of all the soil that every American depends upon to grow his life sustaining food, new cleaner forms of energy would have been found and new industries would have sprouted and the standard of living would have continued to magnify. No instead America gave the world NAFTA, CAFTA, FTAA and WTO so that the corporations that reveled in the sumptuous wealth of Americas once upon a time limitless resources could disrespect it's working people and disrespect their homes built on the soil, rivers, streams in order that a few that had the stomach to defraud the helpless out of their own natural resources could continue to roll in the mud of delusion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm getting rich abroad: leave the US flea pit
Posted by: Bobsays on May 18, 2007 4:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the dirty little secret people like George Clooney know and keep to themselves: abroad is better. Just pick the topic: women, quality of life, earning opportunities, the food - it's all better abroad.

The US has become a degrading stretch of monotonous corporate clone crap, whereas the rest of the world is dynamic, tastefull and tasty.

So, go to the bank and get some credit: then buy an air ticket somewhere. Then start a business. Life is to be lived, not endured in US clone drone town.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HUH?! Posted by: Tubeguru
» RE: HUH?! Posted by: edgar_michel
"Supply Side" is STILL a fiction
Posted by: mgloraine on May 18, 2007 6:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The notion of "Supply Side" economics was fabricated by spin-doctors to disguise the obvious quid-pro-quo exchange of executive favoritism for campaign contributions and kickbacks. It was never an actual economic policy, just another Republican scheme to enrich themselves and their sponsors at the expense of American taxpayers. "Trickle-down" was invented as a way to explain why the government was busy making the wealthiest people in the country even more obscenely wealthy while others were in desperate need: "You'll get yours when it trickles down!"
So where do you have to stand to catch some of that trickle-down these days? India? Iraq? Switzerland? When the fat-cats take their supply-side capital out of the U.S., there is no advantage to the country as a whole, so the effect of the incentive is lost. But of course, that's obvious and everyone already knows that.
When someone suggests that "Supply Side" has ever been anything but a total failure, I'm inclined to believe that it must be because they were (or are) on the receiving end of the exclusive hand-outs, or lost in the fog of the military-industrial complex.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Supply Side" is STILL a fiction Posted by: edgar_michel