1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[WaPo] ‘The World’s Worst Bet’: Bill Clinton looks back on the world he built

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Os Trigonum, Sep 6, 2025.

  1. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    82,558
    Likes Received:
    122,845
    good read, gift link will work for everyone

    ‘The World’s Worst Bet’: Bill Clinton looks back on the world he built
    Bill Clinton looks back on his presidency and the impact of globalization on the US economy and politics

    https://wapo.st/4lYuhfz

    excerpt:

    No American did more to lay the groundwork for 21st century globalization than Bill Clinton. As the 42nd president of the United States – the leader of the world’s largest economy and sole superpower – he shepherded a historic North American trade deal through Congress and celebrated China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. Clinton embraced globalization, championed it, and sought to shape it as a force for good.

    When he left the White House in 2001, Clinton’s public approval rating was a remarkable 66 percent. The U.S. economy had boomed on his watch; almost 23 million more Americans were working at the end of Clinton’s presidency than at the beginning. Abroad, he had presided over an era of U.S. supremacy. Former adversaries in Moscow and Beijing cooperated with Washington, hoping to imbibe the secrets of American prosperity.

    More than two decades later, the glow of those years has dimmed. Clinton’s captaincy of global integration no longer looks like an unalloyed success. The most recent book-length study of his presidency was entitled “A Fabulous Failure.” Clinton’s management of globalization, and its consequences at home and abroad, now draws criticism from across the political spectrum.

    On the left, the Democratic Party’s progressive wing disdains his market-oriented economics. The most recent Democrat to occupy the White House, Joe Biden, scorned Clinton-style trade deals, choosing instead to promote domestic manufacturing. It was an article of faith in the Biden White House that voters injured by foreign competition helped deliver the presidency to Donald Trump.

    Conservatives, meanwhile, assail Clinton’s handling of China. He was naive, they say, to believe that Chinese Communists would ever surrender their monopoly on power, even if in western eyes full economic liberalization required political reform. Like many others, Clinton wrongly expected technology to erode Chinese authoritarianism.

    On a mid-winter day in early 2024, Clinton was ready to talk about globalization – the greatest engine of prosperity the world has ever seen – and how it went off track. Thinner than in his White House years, thanks to the vegan diet he had adopted after a brush with heart disease, he still had a thick head of hair. His eyes were clear. On his wrist, he wore an Apple Watch with a band of safety-vest orange.

    “It’s gotten to be that there’s not a lot of clear thinking about the upsides of globalization,” he said at the start of a 75-minute interview in his midtown Manhattan office.

    Leaning back in his chair, with his legs stretched out before him, Clinton acknowledged that events have not turned out as he had expected. He agreed that U.S. leaders failed to provide the help they had promised for those Americans left behind in a globalized world and had underestimated the resentments percolating among the working class.

    Part of the problem, he said, was that the private sector had outfoxed the public sector. As capital grew more mobile, governments struggled to raise enough money by taxing corporations and the wealthy to pay for the social programs that would have softened the blow for workers.

    “Look, I was amazed that we held off as long as we did in this kind of nationalist reaction, because you could see all over America and all over the world that the thing that was killing globalization was that the policies had to be ratified by nations. But their ability to nationalize the benefits was limited, either by their tax base or their wealth or their understanding or whatever – it was just limited,” he said. “So there was going to be a reaction sooner or later.”
    more at the link


     
    ThatBoyNick likes this.
  2. juicystream

    juicystream Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2001
    Messages:
    30,779
    Likes Received:
    7,361
    I definitely think we are better off for it, but it did come with downsides.
     
  3. Corrosion

    Corrosion Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    10,185
    Likes Received:
    13,511
    Pretty sad statement there.

    Outsource jobs of working Americans and replace them with social programs, while taxing the shiit out of corporations to pay for it all ....

    It's apparent someone lacked the understanding that you don't really tax a corporation, you tax it's customers and it's employee's, not the board room.
     
  4. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,362
    Likes Received:
    23,688
    Related

    Opinion | Trump’s Lonely Trade Crusade - The New York Times
    By The Editorial Board

    excerpt:

    When the United States pushed to reduce tariffs and other trade barriers in the wake of World War II, much of the world followed its lead, embracing the argument from America’s leaders that increasing trade would increase prosperity.

    Now, as President Trump pushes to reverse that history, raising new barriers to limit imports, it is increasingly clear that the world is no longer persuaded by America’s approach to economic policy. Other nations are not, for the most part, retaliating against the Trump administration’s policies by imposing higher tariffs on American goods. They also are not, for the most part, imposing higher tariffs on goods imported from countries other than the United States. The rest of the world is rejecting Mr. Trump’s protectionism.

    Mr. Trump’s top trade adviser, Jamieson Greer, recently wrote in a guest essay for Times Opinion that the Trump administration is forging a “new global trading order.” In reality, the United States is walking out of the system it created. While other nations regret its departure, they are not inclined to follow in its self-destructive footsteps. Fears of a global trade war have not materialized because the leaders of other nations have recognized what Mr. Trump seems unable to grasp — that by raising tariffs, they would be hurting their own countries. The result, as the World Trade Organization reported last month, is that “a broader cycle of tit-for-tat retaliation that could be very damaging to global trade has so far been avoided.”

    A sign of the folly of Mr. Trump’s trade policy is that it has inspired no apparent envy.

    One reason that other nations are not raising their own tariffs is that Mr. Trump’s policies are not delivering the promised benefits. The president has long insisted that higher tariffs would protect American manufacturers from unfair foreign competition, leading American consumers to buy more goods produced in American factories, which in turn would expand domestic employment. But the number of Americans with factory jobs has declined by 28,000 since Mr. Trump took office. While the administration has cited some big, high-profile investments in new factories, the broader pattern is that companies are canceling or delaying their expansion plans. Spending on factory construction in the United States, a good indicator of the outlook for domestic manufacturing, declined in each of the first six months of Mr. Trump’s second term, ending a period of rapid growth under President Joe Biden.

    Tariffs also are a double-edged sword for American manufacturers, raising the prices of imported materials and components. Many of the products “Made in America” include a significant share of parts and materials made in other countries.

    As we wrote earlier this year, reviving domestic manufacturing is a worthy goal. The post-World War II expansion of global trade delivered on its promise of prosperity, but it also caused real problems in the United States and other developed countries. The distribution of benefits was uneven; millions of factory workers lost their jobs. Today, tariffs could be deployed judiciously to support the development of new industries and to protect critical technologies. Some of America’s trading partners have used tariffs to pursue these kinds of goals.

    Mr. Trump, however, has raised tariffs indiscriminately. The average effective tariff rate for the United States has soared to 18.6 percent from 2.5 percent when Mr. Trump took office in January, according to the Yale Budget Lab. The new level is far higher than in any other developed nation. The Trump administration boasts that the tariffs are raising billions of dollars in new revenue — perhaps as much as half a trillion dollars per year. But American consumers are largely paying the cost of these new taxes. The tariffs could reduce the purchasing power of the average American household by $2,100 by 2027, the Budget Lab calculates.

    The most telling evidence that countries are not merely putting a brave face on a bad situation is that they are not raising tariffs on other trading partners. They are rejecting Mr. Trump’s approach to trade even in relationships in which they hold the upper hand. The European Union, to take just one example, has not only refrained from significant retaliation against the United States. It also has not emulated Mr. Trump by imposing tariffs on low-income Asian nations in an attempt to bolster the prospects of European manufacturers.

    Other nations continue to pursue the example established by the United States decades ago because they continue to see trade, managed judiciously, as a path to greater prosperity. The Trump administration, by rejecting this global consensus, has damaged both the American economy and American global leadership.​
     

Share This Page