That the Clinton administration hasn’t said all that much since the Nov. 3 midterm congressional elections is instructive. For one thing, who can say it better than angry Republicans who fill the airwaves with finger-pointing, bellyaching and political introspection about how their House leadership nearly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Shut the door behind you, Newt.
The Dems, for their part, are sad to see Newt go. Newt unified Dems like no one else; they no longer have Newt to kick around.
Another-albeit less obvious-reason the White House has been relatively quiet on the Republican Revulsion of 1998 is its growing preoccupation with the global financial crisis generally and the rising U.S. trade deficit specifically.
Why is the administration so worried?
President Clinton realizes neither he nor anyone else on the planet has a good handle on the manifestations of free trade that he and others support. In addition, the United States will end the year with a $240 billion trade deficit that could spike to $300 billion when 1999 is over.
That’s political fodder aplenty for far-right and left-leaning protectionists in 2000. Free trade has wide bipartisan support, except for on the fringes.
Clinton will be among the U.S. officials preaching the gospel at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit this week in Malaysia.
But left unchecked, a runaway global economy is a ticking time-bomb every bit as dangerous in its own way as Saddam Hussein.
“Today, the financial markets, more than at any other time, are operating as an independent economic force,” said Clinton in remarks to the President’s Export Council last week.
Aided by high technology, $1.5 trillion in capital moves back and forth in the global market. But what if “capital flows” do not correlate closely with what’s being traded? And what if no one is really in control? What then?
“That is at the bottom of a lot of the challenges we’re facing today,” said Clinton. “How do we continue to support the necessary free flow of capital so that we can have the trade, the investment we need, and avoid the enormous impact that a financial collapse can have when the money being traded on its own is so much much greater that the total value of goods and services being traded or investments being made?”
The wireless industry should have the same high anxiety as the administration over the global economy.
On the one hand, overseas emerging markets-like Asia, South America and Eastern Europe-offer enormous growth potential for wireless firms. On the other hand, global volatility creates big risks. Witness the turmoil in the three regions above.
GE Chairmen John Welsh Jr. last week noted that “globalization is one of the engines of GE growth now and well into the next century,” and “one cannot afford to write off any region in difficulty.”
Top U.S. officials put EU counterparts on notice at the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue that America will not tolerate protectionist policies that make it a giant dumping ground for global exports. The EU could take that as a warning for 3G.
