Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JHan

(10,173 posts)
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 04:03 PM Jan 2017

President Obama's warning about automation.

Underneath the nostalgia and hope in President Obama’s farewell address Tuesday night was a darker theme: the struggle to help the people on the losing end of technological change.

“The next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas,” Mr. Obama said. “It will come from the relentless pace of automation that makes a lot of good, middle-class jobs obsolete.”

Donald J. Trump has tended to blame trade, offshoring and immigration. Mr. Obama acknowledged those things have caused economic stress. But without mentioning Mr. Trump, he said they divert attention from the bigger culprit.

Economists agree that automation has played a far greater role in job loss, over the long run, than globalization. But few people want to stop technological progress. Indeed, the government wants to spur more of it. The question is how to help those that it hurts.

The inequality caused by automation is a main driver of cynicism and political polarization, Mr. Obama said. He connected it to the racial and geographic divides that have cleaved the country post-election.


*snip*

Education is the main solution the White House advocated. When the United States moved from an agrarian economy to an industrialized economy, it rapidly expanded high school education: By 1951, the average American had 6.2 more years of education than someone born 75 years earlier. The extra education enabled people to do new kinds of jobs, and explains 14 percent of the annual increases in labor productivity during that period, economists say.

Now the country faces a similar problem. Machines can do many low-skilled tasks, and American children, especially those from low-income and minority families, lag behind their peers in other countries educationally.

The White House proposed enrolling more 4-year-olds in preschool and making two years of community college free for students, as well as teaching more skills like computer science and critical thinking. For people who have already lost their jobs, it suggested expanding apprenticeships and retraining programs, on which the country spends half what it did 30 years ago.

Displaced workers also need extra government assistance, the report concluded. It suggested ideas like additional unemployment benefits for people who are in retraining programs or live in states hardest hit by job loss. It also suggested wage insurance for people who lose their jobs and have to take a new one that pays less. Someone who made $18.50 an hour working in manufacturing, for example, would take an $8 pay cut if he became a home health aide, one of the jobs that is growing most quickly.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/upshot/in-obamas-farewell-a-warning-on-automations-perils.html?_r=0
.........................................................................................................

" they divert attention from the bigger culprit." - In other words, we have to prepare ourselves for a world where capitalist enterprise no longer needs low-skilled workers.

Capitalism has always depended on a ready stream of low skilled workers. Which isn't to say Capitalism doesn't uplift people out of poverty - it does- however it works best in tandem with some communist/socialist principles of collectivism i.e. investing in the commons and placing value on people or "human resources". This hybrid approach is a better guarantee of sustained wealth creation and economic opportunities for all. But, unfortunately, American capitalism prioritizes shareholder value and short term profit above all other considerations. The result of this rapacious and short sighted approach has been wage stagnation and entrenched poverty over the past couple decades.

With increasing automation, the need for low wage labor will be eliminated, and even mid to high skilled jobs may be threatened by mechanized and/or AI systems. Whatever can be made cheaper, even complex processes, will be made cheaper using technology.

Regressive Protectionist ideas won't fix the problem, just prolong the suffering by allowing capitalists to exploit the remnants of a system that is slowly dying. And this Trump government ,backed by Anarco capitalists, won't care - and they won't come up with real solutions to address poverty - like implementing Universal Basic Income, quality socialized healthcare and changing the current paradigm.

Democrats must lead on these issues. We can't say we weren't warned.
24 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
President Obama's warning about automation. (Original Post) JHan Jan 2017 OP
The think is that... nycbos Jan 2017 #1
Throughout history, tyrants have been able to misdirect people's anger... Wounded Bear Jan 2017 #2
+++++ JHan Jan 2017 #8
When does Rollerball start? n/t Hestia Jan 2017 #3
it seems to me that in a sensible society, increasing automation would be a good thing anarch Jan 2017 #4
It isn't that automation is bad. In fact, in theory, destruction of the planet withstanding, this JCanete Jan 2017 #6
agreed: JHan Jan 2017 #9
Protectionism would have been good a long time ago, when we could have set labor standards JCanete Jan 2017 #5
Well we had an opportunity with the TPP... JHan Jan 2017 #12
The notion that TPP is good and that protectionism is bad, is predicated on assumptions that JCanete Jan 2017 #15
However... JHan Jan 2017 #16
there is a vast difference between expecting other countries to be as finicky? as us* JCanete Jan 2017 #17
You cannot make those kinds of judgments for other countries.. JHan Jan 2017 #18
I'm not sure how tarrifs would be lecturing. They would be much more about making us JCanete Jan 2017 #19
Tariffs have forever failed: JHan Jan 2017 #20
Tariffs have failed for who, when, how? How were they implemented and what was their intention? JCanete Jan 2017 #21
Again.. JHan Jan 2017 #22
unless you can demonstrate that language in the thing would have done something other than JCanete Jan 2017 #23
No trade agreement will be liked by everyone... JHan Jan 2017 #24
This is precisely what TPP was about. joshcryer Jan 2017 #7
Drumpfy can try to outlaw automation. DemocratSinceBirth Jan 2017 #10
Thank you for this, JH Cha Jan 2017 #11
Truck drivers, taxi, Uber, cashiers, fast food workers, who am I leaving out? sarcasmo Jan 2017 #13
Hedge Fund managers potentially... lol.. JHan Jan 2017 #14

Wounded Bear

(58,440 posts)
2. Throughout history, tyrants have been able to misdirect people's anger...
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 04:07 PM
Jan 2017

in "populist" movements that they used to seize and misuse power.

Difficult times ahead, and Mr Obama is a pretty smart guy.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
8. +++++
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 06:09 PM
Jan 2017

And I've always admired President Obama deft skill of communicating some populist ideas without being toxic or divisive.

anarch

(6,535 posts)
4. it seems to me that in a sensible society, increasing automation would be a good thing
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 04:20 PM
Jan 2017

I mean, do we want "jobs" per se, or the sustenance and quality of life afforded by the products and services created by the labor force, and by the purchasing power (at least theoretically) provided by the workers' income?

Technology such as automated production methods and artificial intelligence should benefit our society and improve the quality of life for all the people in the society...how can more time for leisure pursuits and family life be seen as a bad thing, if productivity is the same (or better) with the automation? Oh, right, that's socialism so we can't even talk about it or we'll go to hell or something.

The jobs themselves really shouldn't be seen as the end goal, should they? It makes no sense.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
6. It isn't that automation is bad. In fact, in theory, destruction of the planet withstanding, this
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 04:50 PM
Jan 2017

sort of technology gets us closer to something Utopian, where we don't need labor to do the work that nobody wants to do...where everybody can pursue cultural enrichment or whatever their passions are...blah blah blah

The issue is that we can't expect society as it stands to address that growing unemployment. As there is less work, and people have less money, we are going to have less buying power...corporations are going to have even less incentive to hire, and ultimately, there comes a point where we are going to be entirely worthless to the elites. And they will have it all. There's no incentive to use your land for housing, or to keep it up...etc. if there's nothing to gain from it. There's no incentive to produce enough food for people, if there stops being something to gain from it. Etc.

And with increasingly powerful technology(admittedly this is sci-fi territory) it will become harder and harder to fight back if the elites decide that we can just crawl off somewhere and die. Revolution is still possible today, because hell, we still need actual soldiers who have consciouses and families to fight against revolutions...but between drones and ai, etc. I assume there will become a point where far less people need to be on board to entirely suppress the seeding of an uprising.

Not that I'm suggesting Revolution now, or that I think such a thing would be good. I'm suggesting that while the people still have a voice that has to be heard, we use it to alter the fabric of society towards something that will favor people as people over their buying power. We really need to do this soon, because I think there will come a point where its too late.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
9. agreed:
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 06:23 PM
Jan 2017

I've explored some of those same ideas here:

Technology such as automated production methods and artificial intelligence should benefit our society and improve the quality of life for all the people in the society...how can more time for leisure pursuits and family life be seen as a bad thing, if productivity is the same (or better) with the automation?


Yep, we have to change the paradigm, it's not sustainable as is.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
5. Protectionism would have been good a long time ago, when we could have set labor standards
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 04:36 PM
Jan 2017

for foreign nations that wanted to export to us, or our own businesses that wanted to outsource and then sell us those products that were made by people making slave wages.

Protectionism now could be done, yes as a stop-gap, but not necessarily one that has to benefit the businesses over labor. How it will be done, if at all under Trump, will probably be horrible, because it will have nothing to do with demanding certain standards of foreign industries as it pertains to the environment or their workers. If I had to guess, I'd say it will also probably have all kinds of loopholes for American companies that want to continue to have their products made abroad, in spite of his rhetoric.

But I don't see why you would assume that protectionism couldn't have been instituted in ways that were good for the planet, and good for people everywhere.

I think what is promising here though, is that we both land at different points on the spectrum when it comes to our feelings about Capitalism, BUT that we are both reading the same writing on the wall, and both seeing BIG as an idea that's time has come. This is something Democrats need to start fighting for, and I think we can actually salvage the good of Capitalism with something like this and actually mitigate a whole lot of the bad, if certainly not all of it. I still have a couple of confusions about how BIG would be resistant to certain predatory behaviors(although I do see it helping by reducing some of the depression that makes people take certain kinds of bad risks), not to mention inflation, but it still seems like the best option I've run across.



JHan

(10,173 posts)
12. Well we had an opportunity with the TPP...
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 06:54 PM
Jan 2017

which everyone decided to crap on.

Protectionism always plays favorites. Look at the subsidies we've given industries long past their expiry date, imagine how those subsidies would have been better invested.

As for trade, spill over effects are a challenge because conditions are never perfect. We trade with countries far behind us in technological advancements, wealth, and labour activism. The goal, ultimately, should be agreements that not only benefit producers and consumers, but also capture externalities. Some countries will have greater negative externalities than others, because we're not all on an even footing. In one of HRC's leaked speech excerpts she spoke of a common hemispheric market, which must include provisions that meet agreed upon international standards- and I think this is what you would like, however would every country agree to this? Maybe not right now, but it's a worthy goal.

And we can't avoid this economic reality: To compete with nations that have cheaper labour, we must be more competitive and efficient and also realise that once labour standards improve globally, costs rise- this is why the idea of requiring unionisation in a trade deal was such a good idea, it would have added another layer of expense in outsourcing manufacturers would have found prohibitive.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
15. The notion that TPP is good and that protectionism is bad, is predicated on assumptions that
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 07:47 PM
Jan 2017

the only way you can be fair to 3rd world countries is to allow our corporations and their own governments to exploit their workers and reap and poison their(and our) environment, into the 21st century. We have so much technology and so much wealth. It isn't really necessary that we continue with a paradigm of supply-side destructiveness, I mean, aside from the fact that the machine is in motion and stopping it is going to be a bitch.

I am willing to go so far as to say I'm sure there are things in the TPP that were good, though I think that given the last conversation about unionisation "requirements" embedded within it, that that is quite the over-statement. It's interesting to me that you are so negative on protectionism in a far less measured way. Why couldn't it be either a mixed bag, or just done right? Whether it would be is another story, but your inclination to assume it wouldn't be makes me wonder why you're so confident in the way we craft trade policies.

And again, what about the environment? What about the Sierra Club's objections that this was going to lock us and other nations into behaviors that were exploiting and destroying the environment, due to the threat of litigation for changing policies that affected businesses? These are impacts that we can never ever undo. Once arable land is destroyed, or water poisoned, or species eradicated...etc. That's it.

I agree with you on global competition to an extent. Actually, given that our future is going to be so driven by more and more advanced technology, the way we should be competing is not to continue to double down and tripple down on this consumption model, but to invest in that future, from our infrastructure to our schools to the technologies that allows us to better utilize the human resources that we are entirely discarding in this nation. That lack of efficiency and waste is pretty astonishing. It certainly isn't the American people who are winning from this approach.

Again, what we did was to empower other nations to become superpowers, well one, and we certainly enriched our corporations and the wallets of our shareholders, even if our standard of living continued to eek up, and we did it in a way that was deleterious. The gains in the standards of living for people in other nations is good, but it is leveraged against our global future. We could have done it differently, and we could have used protectionism as that tool to do so, to actually promote socially and/or civically aligned values. The only thing we've ever really cared about though, is whether our financial interests are going to be served, and by "our" I mostly mean those in the top 1%. Granted though, we have far less power to influence these trends than we use to. We wasted the opportunity.

Again though, I don't think we should lose site of our agreement on BIG. How do you feel about something like that actually being a part of the Democratic platform?

JHan

(10,173 posts)
16. However...
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 08:29 PM
Jan 2017

Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2017, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)

"And again, what about the environment? What about the Sierra Club's objections that this was going to lock us and other nations into behaviors that were exploiting and destroying the environment, due to the threat of litigation for changing policies that affected businesses? These are impacts that we can never ever undo. Once arable land is destroyed, or water poisoned, or species eradicated...etc. That's it. "


.. the deal would not have infringed on the rights of states to pass laws for the common good (including the environment). The TPP tried to fix the problems with NAFTA and threat of litigation because of trade infringement. There were a lot of criticisms about the deal prior to the text being made available, and once available, some of the concerns were addressed.

And no trade deal can cover environment concerns perfectly. Realistically we can't expect countries that solely depend on natural resource extraction ( for example) to be as finicky about the environment as we are... We can't make agreements on imagined alternatives. For the benefit of the planet, everyone has to be lifted out of poverty. What you see as "Exploitation" another worker with less options in another country would see it as an opportunity, even if not ideal. With the TPP the union provision was the right direction to prevent shameless exploitation. Was it perfect? No.

We can't have it both ways either - raising living standards in other countries puts them on the path of prosperity. We can't want to improve their lot and still be worried about them benefiting from this wealth and increasing leverage.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
17. there is a vast difference between expecting other countries to be as finicky? as us*
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 09:18 PM
Jan 2017

and improving their lives by getting them into the game of destroying the planet and furthering this supply-side race to the bottom. Without that industrialization to give us the crap we want to consume, yes, we would need a different model to lift nations out of poverty. It's not like we don't have the resources though. The issue is that we are entirely committed to this model, in no small part because the people who benefit most from it keep telling us why it's so damn great.

* of course as individuals in America, we have the single highest carbon footprint on the planet--actually china might have surpassed us finally, but so much of their footprint also belongs to us. It is ours to own through our massive consumption and waste.

While we're talking about things like BIG, we should be expanding that out not just as a national program, but as part of a social safety net that in whatever appropriate iteration should be done globally.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
18. You cannot make those kinds of judgments for other countries..
Mon Jan 23, 2017, 10:07 PM
Jan 2017

that's arrogance. There are already efforts made to diminish environmental harm but when foreign countries balk at America lecturing them surely you understand why they see our arrogance as posturing..

I'm as idealistic as you about the environment but I won't ignore economic realities.
Consumption and waste are problems, but they always have been "problems" and we can do a lot better ... I would never argue that the model is "Great". Every market model has winners and losers- and we must mitigate harmful effects on the most vulnerable on the losing side but not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And renewables are gaining traction globally - and trade would better facilitate sharing of technologies in this regard.


 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
19. I'm not sure how tarrifs would be lecturing. They would be much more about making us
Tue Jan 24, 2017, 03:07 AM
Jan 2017

responsible for our buying behavior here at home. After all, we are the biggest actual problem. Of course, as such, we actually have no business lecturing the world, but we are still the richest nation among the lot, and our supply-side economic model affects the rest of the world. As such, we have every responsibility to regulate ourselves, which means regulating what we buy and the conditions under which it was made.

I know trade deals do have some protections here, which I guess isn't lecturing by your definition? even though, arguably it would still be strong-arming. I'm sure we have a lot of leverage when we determine what the agreements are. The question is are they good enough, and are they intended to be good, or just to look good? The question is who is really benefitting from them?

JHan

(10,173 posts)
20. Tariffs have forever failed:
Tue Jan 24, 2017, 09:18 AM
Jan 2017

History shows this. Trade barriers are an idea long past their sell by date.

"They would be much more about making responsible for our buying behavior here at home"


Well, we'll need to tell consumers who depend on Walmart and CostCo that their buying behavior needs to change. We have benefited because of cheap imported goods. It's disingenuous for us to pretend we haven't.

These arguments are 30 years late. For all of 2016, the focus was on trade. While Donald Trump fusses about saving a couple hundred jobs here and there, self driving vehicles are on the horizon which will likely make millions of jobs redundant over the next decade. Where was the discussion on automation? Why wasn't a single automation question posed to the candidates? I have some ideas why and it makes me despair.

Yes, disgusting practices such as wage theft, sub living wages and exploitative practices that treat workers like indentured servants, still exist in the world and these realities vary region by region but the absence of a trade deal, even imperfect, doesn't improve this situation ( And despite that, Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years). We should be reaching out more to the world, making it easier to trade, encouraging a lift in standards rather than going the protectionist route.

As for our wage stagnation problems, this doesn't have much to do with international trade but the teething pains of the shift to a modern economy, poor management practices, concentration of wealth at the top because of those practices in addition to high costs in healthcare and education.

Whether Trump and Bannon and the other nationalists like it or not, the world is getting smaller. Either we stamp our influence in meaningful ways, understanding we should never make perfect the enemy of good, or we become obsolete.
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
21. Tariffs have failed for who, when, how? How were they implemented and what was their intention?
Tue Jan 24, 2017, 11:36 PM
Jan 2017


Trump's motivations and how he would abuse a tariff system has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Of course his implementation will be shitty. Again, protectionism could be that encouraging carrot. Offering free trade for nations that can meet certain standards...maybe even helping them to meet those standards, would be good for us and for them.

Actually, what's funny is that according to some sources, that was supposed to be our stick built into the TPP..raising tariffs if nation's violated certain labor and environmental laws, so its kind of strange that we're on the sides we are if you don't even believe that's effective. I'm on the side of the issue I'm on because I don't believe according to what I've read, that it would have been used judiciously,nor does it seem that many of these standards would have even been enforceable. I guess, given that you don't think we should "bully" other governments into behaving, you could be on the other side for the same reason...that it has no teeth...but then you can't use that weak language as a selling point of the agreement. . On the other hand, it sounds like it has a lot of teeth when it comes to protecting the interests of investors and corporations.

I agree about automation being ignored in our mainstream politics, but our candidates could have brought it up. Nobody wants to, and that extends to Sanders, who does mention it in passing now, but didn't do in on the campaign trail. It may be that they all think its a bridge too far. They would have to be the messengers of doom before being the bringers of hope, and that's a little tricky with our public, that so often just wants assurance they can believe in.. But the other issue is that if we talk about this assured future that's coming on like a freight train, then we also have to start talking about wealth re-redistribution back into the commons, and if you are comfortable with the status-quo and you aren't interested in going that progressive, this is not an issue you even want to have to address, because its solution takes us into very socialist territory, whether conservative economists have suggested some of these ideas in the past or not.

I am glad a billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty due to outsourcing and the industrialization of third world nations, but you cannot take that fact out of the context of the bigger picture, which includes pollution, environmental degradation, and Global Warming.

By China's own numbers, pollution alone kills 1.5 million people in that nation every year. Climate change is going to cost a shit load more in damage and lives than that.

As to consumers depending on cheap goods from Costco and Walmart, they depend on those cheap goods because we outsourced away the jobs and what has replaced them is predominantly service industry related...selling ourselves the crap that's killing us. I'm sorry, but the problem doesn't get to take credit as the solution. While I agree, outsourcing is going to have less and less to do with displacement and wage stagnation, I don't see how you could possibly say it hasn't affected us over the last 30 years.

That said, When it comes to third-world countries and their own infrastructures and future, well I'll just reiterate, why are we so sick as a society that the only way to help people is to exploit them and their environment? We could do so much better. Being locked into that as good, or even sane, is concerning. Sure, respecting the realities of the moment is something we must do, but we have to be very cognizant of the long term costs when we weigh the net value of our current paradigm.





JHan

(10,173 posts)
22. Again..
Tue Jan 24, 2017, 11:58 PM
Jan 2017
"Tarrifs have failed according to who"


According to History.

And most recently Fareed Zakaria wrote a great piece about globalisation. I'll quote from him, because he assesses it well:

"It is much easier to rail against foreigners and promise to fight them with tariffs and fines. But the cost of addressing these problems at the global level is massive. The Economist reports, in a survey on globalization, that in 2009 the Obama administration punished China with a tariff on its tires. Two years later, the cost to U.S. consumers was $1.1 billion, or $900,000 for every job “saved.” The impact of such tariffs is usually felt disproportionately by the poor and middle class because they spend a larger share of their income on imported goods, such as food and clothing. That same Economist survey points to a study that calculated that, across 40 countries, if transnational trade ended, the wealthiest consumers would lose 28 percent of their purchasing power, but the poorest tenth would lose a staggering 63 percent."

Also: http://bigthink.com/cue-the-future/chinese-import-tariffs-are-a-bad-idea ( another example)

And in our history, the Smoot-Hawley Act was warning enough.

"By China's own numbers, pollution alone kills 1.5 million people in that nation every year. Climate change is going to cost a shit load more in damage and lives than that. "


Yes, China is a horrible polluter, and we just gave them the pacific void by abandoning the TPP where at least, countries in the region would be part of an agreement with provisions that aim to lift the floor of labor and environment standards - not perfect but a step in the right direction. We should not make perfect the enemy of good - Obama kept warning us and he was absolutely correct.

The TPP would have removed 18,000 tariffs. Removing tariffs increases the flow of trade for producers in all brackets - not just corporations but small businesses as well. In fact, the freeing up of tariffs in the TPP was drafted with small business in mind. If trade is freer, nations sell more stuff to each other, enabling them to meet costs and make profit.

The promise of 21st century civilization will not be protectionism. Archaic ideas and politics of nostalgia won't get us there - 21st century civilization will be global in scale and powered by renewable technologies. Our approach to trade must adapt to this reality else we'll get left out and become mired and trapped in archaic political "solutions".

EDIT: Regarding automation and our candidates bringing it up - a trade-obsessed narrative emerged during the election which was difficult to counter. It suited the campaigns of Sanders ( and Trump) but there are no legitimate excuses to ignore automation - there's a reticence, particularly from some on the left, to admit that automation is not the real problem. And I was proud and relieved that in the space of 20 years, we've had another great Democratic President who laid the foundation for the future and used his farewell address to point policy makers in the right direction.
 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
23. unless you can demonstrate that language in the thing would have done something other than
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 12:36 AM
Jan 2017

made us feel good, then it wasn't a good that the perfect was getting in the way of. It was just cover.

And we made China. We created that. They are a horrible polluter, and our way of life is even worse on the environment, even if our air and our rivers are better here at home. This deal might have hurt China's choke-hold on certain things, again, a dynamic we created because all we cared about was helping to make our corporations a boat load of money. It had nothing to do with lifting up the Chinese worker.

Your logic about tariffs could be applied to taxes at home. Reducing taxes on corporations frees up revenue for "small businesses" right?
The degree to which it supports big business is just so much more staggering. A small business may suddenly have competition in a market he didn't previously, because now that big corporation got such a huge tax cut that it can put even more into advertising, or undercut its competition far easier after expanding its reach into that small business's locality or niche. As you say, we have to look at history right? Well, when it comes to small businesses, what trends have you actually been seeing ? Do you really truly believe that small businesses are the ones who win from lower tariffs?

Fareed kicks off his argument with a lot of rhetoric that goes to the kind of racism and mistrust that might make attacking the TPP alluring to somebody like Trump. But that isn't the issue we have with the TPP on the left, and mixing that into the conversation is not helpful if he wants to refute the strongest criticisms rather than the lowest hanging fruit. Again, Fareed is pointing out that the poor displaced workers in this nation have to spend their money in places like Walmart, and that we would be hurting them if we didn't support trade deals that made products cheaper. Why can't you see that for the fallacious argument that it is? He uses one single product tariff as evidence...a tariff that was as disinterested in environmental costs as Fareed's own methodology. He is entirely externalizing the long-term costs. In fact, doing a search, he doesn't mention environment or pollution at any point. Also, wow...saying "if we applied tariffs to 1...1 country wtf...that wouldn't stop businesses from going to other countries. Well no shit Sherlock. How disingenuous can you get?

I don't think liberals are actually in opposition to trade agreements...we just haven't seen one we liked. And that isn't because we want perfect, it's because we think that as written, they are the enemy of the good.

JHan

(10,173 posts)
24. No trade agreement will be liked by everyone...
Wed Jan 25, 2017, 01:27 AM
Jan 2017

and provisions in trade deals aren't "feel good", even non-binding provisions pressure trade partners to adhere to the deal - and they'll realise that it's better to do so than risk violating provisions.

Reducing taxes on corporations frees up revenue for "small businesses" right?


You're ignoring the precedent that tariffs fail. I mentioned Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which represented the last wave of protectionism by Republicans, which was conceived to protect our companies but resulted in catastrophic consequences. At the time, the American Economic Association warned that the tariff act would raise the cost of living by “compelling the consumer to subsidize waste and inefficiency in [domestic] industry.” ( showing once again that Protectionism takes sides) And that the farm sector would not be helped since “cotton, pork, lard, and wheat are export crops and sold in the world market” and farmers would suffer increased operational costs. Third, “our export trade in general would suffer. Countries cannot buy from us unless they are permitted to sell to us.” And the tariff would “inevitably provoke other countries to pay us back in kind against our goods.” And American investors too, would suffer if protective duties were to be increased, since such action would make it still more difficult for their foreign creditors to pay them the interest due them. "https://econjwatch.org/articles/economists-against-smoot-hawley

"And we made China. We created that. They are a horrible polluter, and our way of life is even worse on the environment, even if our air and our rivers are better here at home. This deal might have hurt China's choke-hold on certain things, again, a dynamic we created because all we cared about was helping to make our corporations a boat load of money. It had nothing to do with lifting up the Chinese worker. "


The Chinese Middle class has expanded, as evidenced in the link I provided you with about people lifted out of poverty. Trade deals didn't start pollution in China. You may find the effects distasteful to your sensibilities and ideals, but the data is there and cannot be refuted. You should not conflate China's national policies towards the environment with a trade deal.

And yes smaller businesses benefit from lower tariffs. It is exports and consumer demand that drives job creation. Lower tariffs make it easier for our entrepreneurs, small business owners and farmers to sell our products by eliminating taxes and barriers on American products- we are currently at a disadvantage in the Asia Pacific, the TPP would have given us an edge.

"I don't think liberals are actually in opposition to trade agreements...we just haven't seen one we liked. And that isn't because we want perfect, it's because we think that as written, they are the enemy of the good."


Many liberals like trade agreements - it is the progressive wing of the left that tends not to like them. And you will never find the perfect agreement. There are always winners and losers, it is how we treat with the losers that makes the difference. It's interesting you dismiss the Zakara piece as just "rhetoric" (tho I think it's good rhetoric) when a quote in there sums up succinctly what our problem has always been:

It took a Chinese billionaire to speak frankly on this topic. Jack Ma, the founder of the e-commerce giant Alibaba, estimated that over the past three decades the U.S. government spent $14.2 trillion fighting 13 wars. That money could have been invested in America, building infrastructure and creating jobs. “You’re supposed to spend money on your own people,” he said. He pointed out that globalization produced massive profits for the U.S. economy but much of that money ended up on Wall Street. “And what happened? Year 2008. The financial crisis wiped out $19.2 trillion [in the] U.S.A. alone. .?.?. What if the money [had been] spent on the Midwest of the United States developing the industry there?” he asked. “It’s not [that] the other countries steal jobs from you guys — it is your strategy,” he concluded.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»President Obama's warning...