Trade or Military, Which Loses More Jobs?
Trade Treaties vs. Military Buildups
The GATT, WTO and NAFTA were Bush negotiated and Clinton rubber stamped in 1993. Yet America still had a net gain from manufacturing jobs in the nineties thanks to the peace dividend from the Cold War, when 3.5% of the economy was restored to useful purposes in the fifteen years between 1984 and 1999. Then Clinton started a two year long low military buildup creating the 2001 recession.
With Bush responsible for 80% of the Clinton-Bush military buildup, the American economy slumped decisively in the Bush decade.
The 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost in the 24 months after 9-11-01 were 60% from the military buildup and only 40% from trade treaties. That’s right, the military buildup cost 1.7 million jobs and the trade treaties only 1 million jobs. Once again the empire theory trumps the trade theory. The military buildup boosted real estate prices in the boom areas, as the rest of the manufacturing economy imploded, just like in the Reagan eighties. For both Reagan and Bush, the military buildups distorted the real estate markets and lead to financial collapses by the end of each decade.
See 3 page detailed explanation here:
With an unregulated real estate financial structure in place, Bush had the 2007 Iraq surge of $70 billion push the economy over the cliff. Beginning with the first surge troop deployments in July 2007, the unemployment rate steadily worsened over the next two years as the financial crisis deepened.
The poor recovery since the 2009 recession is in part due to the lack of reduction in military spending. Larry Summers gave bad advice to Barack Obama to use the Afghanistan military buildup as a jobs program. Clinton’s Economic Advisor and Nobel Laureate Joe Stiglitz, knew better as indicated in his book.
See slides 14 and 15 here: