"Free Trade" is not a complicated issue, Hilary

[Armstead]

As usual, Hilary is taking a pseudo-populist position on "free trade" while muddying it up by saying it needs further study.

"Further study" is the purgatory that most issues get sent to in today's McPolitics.

So Hilary, let me help you here, if you want to be a candidate of clarity.

"Free Trade" as it has been defined for the last 15 years is not really complicated. It was a scam by those who pushed for it, and a boneheaded mistake by those who supported it in the belief that it was a good thing.

When you get behind all of the fine print and gobbeldygook that was used to gloss over its' inherent flaws, the whole issue boils down to this.

International trade is good, when it does not take away the ability of nations to determine their own policies and destinies, based on their specific needs. Some sort of broad international trade policy could also be helpful, if it is limited in scope to moderating in specific disputes.

But when it is used as a Trojan Horse to impose one economic philosophy -- Corporate Colonialism -- on the entire planet, it is bad. That's what happened when "free trade" was rammed through in the 1980's and 90's.

It is absolutely stupid to negotiate convoluted global trade pacts like the WTO that take away the economic, political and social sovereignty of individual nations. You can't apply a "one size fits all" set of rules that apply both to the most advanced nations and the least advanced ones....And when it is attempted to deal with the discrepancies, it only makes it more convoluted.

It doesn't make sense -- except for those with a vested interest in exploiting labor and resources in a manner that hurts everyone but the upper echelon. Ultimately, it drives down the real-people economies of advanced nations while also suppressing the actual development of strong domestic economies among the poorer nations.

Likewise, it is stupid to have regional trade pacts like NAFTA that lump together advanced economies like the US and Canada with a less advanced economy like Mexico.

Dennis Kucinich has it right. Scrap this crap, and go back and negotiate realistic and principled trade agreements among individual nations.

[Nederland]

1. International trade is good

I would agree, international trade is good. Any treaty that results in trade increasing is good.

[Romulox]

18. dupe. deleted. nt

[Romulox]

19. Obviously not true.

Would a treaty that results in increased trade in human slaves be good? Self-obviously not. QED.

[Nederland]

20. Good point

I'll concede the generalization is wrong.

However, NAFTA has resulted in a huge increase in tradebetween its members. Of all the areas where increases happened, which do you opposed and why?

[havocmom]

51. NAFTA also enabled US manufactures to move to Mexico, not be bothered by labor laws

It has meant lots of young women getting seriously abused in factories just south of the border.

It has meant more pollution in border areas. Producers like places with little environmental protection regulations. There ARE rivers that flow north and bring pollution with them. Ground water does not recognize borders, so what gets in the ground in a place where factories are not well monitored, can get into water where there are rules.

NAFTA means US protective laws have become a friggin joke.

[incapsulated]

2. Clinton pledges to revisit trade deals

Clinton pledges to revisit trade deals

By Edward Luce in Washington

Published: October 8 2007 23:58 | Last updated: October 8 2007 23:58

Hillary Clinton, frontrunner for the Democratic party’s presidential nomination, on Monday said that all US trade agreements should be evaluated every five years and, if necessary, amended.

The process should start with the North America Free Trade Agreement, which was the signature trade pact of her husband, Bill Clinton, when he was president.

The comments, which were aimed at union leaders who remain critical of Nafta, which they say has displaced US workers, amount to her strongest break so far with Mr Clinton’s pro-free trade agenda of the 1990s.

Mrs Clinton said Nafta suffered from “serious shortcomings”. She also reiterated her pledge to incorporate strong environmental and labour protections in future trade deals – a measure most economists view as protectionist.

“I think it is time that we assess trade agreements every five years to make sure they’re meeting their goals or to make adjustments if they are not,” she said in a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which stages the first caucus vote in the presidential nomination process next January. “And we should start by doing that with Nafta.”

more:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5606f40a-75f1-11dc-b7cb-0000779fd2ac.html

[Armstead]

4. "Revisiting it" is simple

They are wrong.

Go back, start from scratch and negotiate something that fosters trade without screwing the general populations of nations.

[incapsulated]

6. As much as I would like NAFTA to be scrapped

It isn't going to happen. It can be radically changed, however. It's just an agreement and they can be renegotiated.

[Armstead]

7. It depends on who is doing the renegotiation

By the timne all of the smoke and mirrors were cleared away, and revision that is truly meaningful would have to be like starting again.

[incapsulated]

9. You don't just "throw out" international agreements

Without serious international repercussions, Armstead.

At the end of the day, it's just a trade agreement and those are renegotiated all the time. At this point, countries like Mexico are beginning to see that it has unintended negative effects and I'm sure they would be willing to talk, even though Fox is pro-NAFTA.

[Armstead]

10. The international agreements in question already have thrown out....

...domestic laws and sovergnty. Or at least attempted to.

When a nation like the US has policies or regulations that conflict with such things as the rights of "foreign investment" then a basic principle of democracy has already been thrown out.

These are not "just" trade agreements. If they were, they would not be so objectionable. But when you look at their actual purpose and implications, you'll see that they extend far beyond trade and affect almost every other aspect of life.

[incapsulated]

11. There were many different versions of the original agreement

Clinton, for reasons I will never understand, shocked everyone by pushing the most extreme, draconian version of the agreement.

These are our neighbors, you don't just sign trade agreements with them one day and tell them to fuck off the next.

We are going to have a trade agreement with them anyway. Revisiting it every five years, no matter what it is named, is a good start.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. Kucinich has noted that there are "escape clauses" in these agreements, where

any participant can back out after giving a certain amount of notice.

[Rhythm and Blue]

3. If you believe an issue as complex as the world economy

is "not complicated" and can be reduced to "good" and "bad," you may be oversimplifying just a tad.

[Armstead]

5. Robbery is bad.

I would assume you would agree with that reductionist explanation of an economic principle.

Yes, trade is complicated. But at some point you also have to get beyond the "can't see the forest for the trees" smokescreen that is used to ram through policies that are obviously harmful when you apply the "common sense and common decency" test.

[Rhythm and Blue]

16. Robbery is an extremely, extremely simple transaction,

in which one person through force transfers ownership of an object of value. That violates the principles of contract and ownership, the sanctity of which any market economy depends. That is pretty clearly "bad." But I'm pretty clearly just being a pain there, so sorry.

When talking about the ramifications of trade deals, saying "lowering restrictions on trade is always bad" is an oversimplification. Now, it's a smokescreen if you're saying, "Pass this because you can't prove it's bad," yeah, I certainly agree. But at the same time, demanding that a candidate take a position of always raising trade restrictions, well, that's a simplification.

[Armstead]

25. I don;t recall saying that

Now you're engaged in oversimplification of my position.

In fact, I said international trade can be a good thing.

Nor did I say trade policy should always be restrictive. Often, I could go along with making it less restrictive.

However we should be very critical of trade policy that forces US workers to compete for wages with workers in nations with much lower standards of living (and which do almost nothing to raise the standard of living there either) or which encourages companies to escape environmental regulation or which lower the standards for products sent into the US or...etc. etc.etc.

[pacalo]

8. As for NAFTA...

How low can our government go: when the bulk of our manufacturing jobs are sent overseas, our government reclassifies jobs at McDonald's/Burger Kings as "manufacturing" jobs to keep their numbers respectful to the constituency that isn't paying attention. When the government gives away our good-paying jobs, what country is going to step in and send comparable-paying jobs here to help better our lives? The answer is no country, because the only idea of NAFTA is to help the corporations pocket the profits made by converting "good-paying" jobs to countries whose workers have "low-paying" expectations.

...it is stupid to have regional trade pacts like NAFTA that lump together advanced economies like the US and Canada with a less advanced economy like Mexico.

[Armstead]

13. The employment conveyor belt

That's basically what these agreements are about.

You put a good paying job in the US at one end of the belt, and it winds up as a shitty job in a poor country at the other.

Only winners are the owners of the belt.

[MGKrebs]

31. Without something like NAFTA, our immigration problem would be even worse, no?

And from what I hear, all the stuff in Wal Mart isn't even from Mexico anyway.

It's not really a matter of "NAFTA" or "no NAFTA". There are consequences either way.

[Armstead]

33. Our immigration problem was much LESS before NAFTA

And the stuff in Wal mart is courtesy of MFN status for China....Another Clinton-led debacle.

[One Sweet World]

45. yep but conservatives now question free trade

Seventy percent of Wal-Mart's goods are made in China.

According to a WSJ poll, Repug voters believe free trade is bad for the economy...on a two to one margin.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119144942897748150.html?mod=blog

"The new poll asked a broader but similar question. It posed two statements to voters. The first was, 'Foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy, because demand for U.S. products abroad has resulted in economic growth and jobs for Americans here at home and provided more choices for consumers.'

The second was, 'Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products.'

Asked which statement came closer to their own view, 59% of Republicans named the second statement, while 32% pointed to the first."

[havocmom]

53. NAFTA not just about corporations saving $ on payroll

They can safe fortunes going to where there is less regulation of labor and environmental issues.

Imagine the outcry in the US if lots of manufacturers REQUIRED female workers to take birth control pills. (Yes, I do know SOME jobs do require that due to exposure to certain substances as part of the job here, but the malquiladoras have been known to require females to take the pill so they will keep working - oh, and there have been some real horror stories about sexual abuse too, so there's another reason to make sure the girls are all taking the pill)

Few or barely enforced regulations probable saves as much or more than the labor costs. And the corporations know when Americans get desperate enough, workers HERE will insist protections and regulations be scrapped, just so they can get some sort of job.

It is economic blackmail. NAFTA is all about wiping out sovereignty and laws corporations don't like.

[MGKrebs]

12. It may not be a complicated principle, but it very well may be complicated

to implement something.

[Armstead]

14. Not if there's a political and popular will to do so

As more and more people grasp the real implications, they would be much more likely to push for change. And if enough of them do so, it would cause the politicians to respond by implementing it.

Maybe that;s naive and overly idealistic, but I'm a big fan of Frank Capra. :)

[MGKrebs]

17. I think you pretty much defined a complicated implementation!

And I agree with you.

[TwilightZone]

15. Note: it's "Hillary", not "Hilary"

She's been in the public eye for 15 years. It's probably time to figure out how she spells her name.

[oasis]

21. Too "complicated". (eom)

[TwilightZone]

24. I guess so.

It happens so often on DU that I often wonder if it's intentional.

[Armstead]

27. OK Hillary

Happy now?

How about addressing the substance of the original post?

[slipslidingaway]

22. Kucinich Talks NAFTA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x60814


Kucinich on China Trade Bill...and How the candidates voted
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3511387

"...Furthermore, giving China permanent MFN will be harmful to the U.S. economy, since the record trade deficit with China (and attendant problems such as loss of U.S. jobs, and lower average wages in the U.S.) will worsen. For 2000, the trade deficit was nearly $84 billion. Now that China has been awarded permanent MFN and is close to WTO membership, the trade deficit will worsen. In a September 30, 1999 report, the U.S. International Trade Commission concluded that China's accession to the WTO would cause "an increase in the U.S. trade deficit with China".

Conclusion -- There was no legal requirement to award China permanent MFN. Permanent MFN will be a drag on the U.S. economy and has cost us the best leverage we have to promote justice in China and throughout the world."

[BrightKnight]

23. So Dennis is going to remove MFN status when he is elected.

I'm sure most of the Repugs will go along with that. Problem solved.

[Armstead]

26. They should never have gotten it in the first place

It's wrong to justify making a mistake in the first place and argue that because it would be difficult to undo it should be left in place.

The pooch was screwed. DK knew it at the time.

[slipslidingaway]

delete...dup

[slipslidingaway]

28. Many Republicans were with Clinton on this vote

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2000/roll228.xml

Senate votes were more mixed
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00251


http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/23/pntr.wrap/index.html

"The Clinton Administration has sidled up to its regular adversaries, the members of the House Republican leadership, in a concentrated attempt to convince lawmakers that Wednesday's vote is the most important they will cast this session, and could be one of the most important of their legislative careers.

"The consequences of this vote will be felt after I am no longer president," Clinton said Tuesday afternoon. "Our country fought three wars in Asia in the last half-century. We ought to give our children a chance to have a different 50 years ahead."

President Bill Clinton's most trusted allies, however -- the congressional leaders of his own party -- are lining up for the most part against his position on this vote. They are spurred on by their supporters in the organized labor community, who argue that open trade with China would leech jobs away from the United States and would be rewarded for abusing its own workforce.

House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-Michigan), who has led the charge for opponents of the trade deal, disputed any claims that backers of the trade deal had reached 218 'yes' votes, saying Tuesday afternoon, "Nobody has the votes yet. We can beat this thing."

[liberalla]

29. We need FAIR trade, not free trade.

As Thom Hartmann says, we need FAIR trade, not free trade!

Hillary, Talk to Thom!!!

[BootinUp]

44. Bill C. was saying this a long time ago. n/t

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

30. You're obviously afraid of strong women and want Rudy as president

Sorry - just getting the stock DLC HIllbot non-issue-based retort out of the way for you

[Armstead]

32. I want a strong woman for President

Someone like Cong. Jan Schakowsky (D Ill.) for example. Now there's a DEMOCRAT.

That's my stock answer to the DLC Hillbots. :)

[BootinUp]

34. A fair interpretation of the Clinton approach

is that "free trade" agreements must have regulations insuring minimum protections for workers on both sides and that these regulations must be enforced. Therefore there really is nothing "free" to their position.

[Armstead]

35. Why has that gotten worse instead of better?

REad about the conditions of workers in some of the sweatshops made poossible (and encouraged) by the trade agreements of the last 15 years.

"Minimum labor standards" is just lip service -- a fig leaf to gloss over a fundamentally flawed approach.

[BootinUp]

36. The policies Clinton put in have not been enforced

or improved over time.

[Armstead]

37. The whole context was wrong.

Rather than capitulate to the Corporate Elite and the fuzzy headed globalists, the US has always had a very strong power to use carrots and sticks to spread our values regarding labor and the environment.

It's called "buying power." We could have simply said "You want to screw your workers, then you don't get access to our markets."

But raising global standards was never the point of these so-called "free trade" agreements. It was simply to remove any restraint on the free flow of capital and to allow the elites to set their own rules.

[BootinUp]

38. You just completely contradicted

public statements by both of them. I don't see how one can debate their position with you.

[Armstead]

39. Public statements mean nothing with them

Having been an ardent Bill Clinton supporter in the early 1990's, I learned the hard way that what they say is often very different than what they actually end up doing.

[BootinUp]

40. A positive take

on Bill's record for your amusement.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/Clinton.html

[Armstead]

41. A critical take on Bill Clinton

for your amusement

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20000214/greider

[BootinUp]

42. At least yours was funny...

[Armstead]

48. That's what I like

A discussion of actual subjects.

Oh yeah. I'm rubber you're glue. Everything you say bounces off me and sticks to you.

[BootinUp]

52. I read at least 1/2 the article

and I really have no desire to discuss it since its a cheap shot. It would be different if it examined some things in detail instead of just foisting the writers opinions on us. I gave you a link to a list of accomplishments that we could discuss if you like.

[Armstead]

55. Your definition of a cheap shot differs from mine

Greider is not simply some uninformed whacko lobbing grenades from the left. For decades he has been an extremely astute analyst, and his points are made by a combination of rigorous detail and economic analysis and basic principals that are thoroughly mainstream liberalism.

If you bothered to read more than half the article, you might have realized that it is not simply aimed at Clinton, but at the whole direction that politics has gone -- and the results of the blurring of lines between the two political parties....Even though it was written in 2000, it is just as appropriate today.

What's also important is to get below the surface of happy talk that characterized the 1990's. (And Greider does look below the surface in that article.)

The fact is that Bush merely accelerated and brought out into the open the direction we were already headed in in the 1990's (which were an extension of the course set by Reagan/Bush in the 1980's).

I'm always happy to discuss the details of issues. I frankly prefer that to personality politics. My antipathy towards Hillary is not personal. I like her, and would love to see her as a long-time Senator.But what she represents, and who she is allied with is part of the problem, not the solution.

This thread is probably not the place to discuss other specifics. In the context of this thread, however, I will simply point out that as the chickens come home to roost from the wrongheaded trade policies that were drawn up under Bush 1 and rammed through by Bill Clinton, it should be obvious that we can't fix the problem by staying with the same crowd who created this mess.

[BootinUp]

56. I understood yours and the authors opinion

I disagree with it. The political direction of a country is not under the control of one politician.

You both blame political environment entirely on the politicians instead of real factors that cause public opinion to shift. A politican is a voice that represents a view. The louder or more powerful one is, is directly related to how many share the view. Major formation of ones opinions is from real world events, feeling of security, education, life experiences. Politicians campaign speeches and beliefs are a minor influence, we either agree with them or we don't.

To say it plainly, the policies of a successful politician match the desired policies of the electorate in our system. This is why his trade policies were not unpopular with a majority. And it doesn't help the discussion if you distort his trade policies/beliefs either.

To blame Clinton for a rightward shift is to ignore what really caused Americans to reject liberal politicians in increasing trends since the 80's.

[Armstead]

57. Not necessarily -- The baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

The Clintons rode a current that had been shaped by a combination of factors, including an endless barrage of corporate propaganda that both beat down the will of the populace and sold a false set of goods.
Politicians like the Clintons didn't cause that -- but they aided and abetted it.

The real troubles of the 70's got blamed on the "liberals." Although it was true that liberalism needed to be given a tune up, the cowardly elements of the Demiocratic Party shrank away from basic liberal values, instead of fighting for them. In the process of making a necessary correction, they tossed out the baby with the bathwater.

For example, whenever two mega-corporations merged, the media and the right-wing machine shut out any contrary views to such mantras as "Forming a monopoly is necessary to preserve competition" or "Widespread layoffs and pay cuts are good for workers." (It wasn't said that bluntly, but it was close.)

As a result, people were relentlessly told to stop listening to their own instincts and buy into the notion that outsourcing was good for the US economy, and that concentration of wealth and power is natural. The "centrist" Democrats seldom called out this line of crap, much less try to do anything to rein it in through quaint policies such as anti-trust regulations. Instead they cozied up to the Wall St. crowd.

The cumulative result was average people became cynical and fatalistic -- and eventually the prospect of actual positive change was made to seem unrealistic.
Instead of providing contrary views and providing a politicval vehicle to counteract Corporate Republicanism, sell-outs like the Clintons emulated them from a combination of timidity, incompetence and Machavellian self-interest.

There is an opportunity today to reverse that course, and get back to the real center of America, which includes much more liberal humanism than the current corporatist center is being defined as.

[BootinUp]

59. No thats fantasy

the part about the politicians aided and abetted it.

They were elected to DO it. It is what they believed in themselves. I am not speaking of very corrupt ones or outright liars, but the statement above is plain fact.

The opportunity that exists today is to take advantage of the failures of both parties. The failure of the Democratic Party to present a suitable candidate/personality/personal history and the failures of the Republican policies/leadership. The public wants change, we only need to give them what they really want. Don't tell them what they want or they will reject us.

[Armstead]

66. An interesting philosophical and historic question

Although we obviously disagree, you raise some worthwhile points for discussion.

My belief is that people really do want the kind of change that is only brought by liberal principles. Can you imagine today what would happen if Medicare or Social Security were proposed as new programs?

There would be a massive hue and cry from the conservative side about how those programs are socialism and communistic, and they will do everything to prevent them.

And instead of fighting to create and push through those programs, the Democrats would concede instantly and agree that it is unrealistic, blah,blah, etc.

But look at the hue and cry that arose when GW announced plans to somewhat privatize Social Security. It was very obvious that the public did not want to lose this program.....And can you imagine what would happen to any effort to kill Medicare off?

And, in several so-called "red states" that went for Bush, those same voters simultaneously voted to increase their states' minimum wage.

I also know many people, such as my brother, who are very moderate, pro-business in general, who have become absolutely disgusted with the present values and abuses of Corporate America and believe we've gone way too far in the wrong direction.

My point is that people do not necessarily support the right-wing corporatist agenda, but we have been browbeaten over the years to think that positive change and reforms are not possible or "realistic" anymore.

And, to address your point, it would not be a matter of Democratic politicians "telling people what they want." Rather it would simply be supporting things that people really do want, and making worthy goals seem possible again.

[jmp]

43. Whatever the issue ... Hillary is both FOR and AGAINST it.

She can't be accused of flip-flopping, because she never actually takes a position.

Even silly benign questions like being asked to choose between the Cubs and Yankees turn her into a pretzel.

And she wants to be President. :eyes:

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. right from the republican playbook

they said those exact things about Kerry. Hmmm.

[Armstead]

49. Right out of the DLC playbook...

Anyone who is remotely critical of the Clintons is automatically a right-wing freeper.

[Evergreen Emerald]

62. "flip-flop?"

I can't believe anyone on DU would ever use that slur that was created by neo-cons to distort and twist and lie about Kerry.

It is right-wing freeper language--why use it against our own?

[jmp]

68. Maybe the party could nominate a candidate ...

That doesn't DO it. Then no one could say it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. GATT Has 110 Members And The WTO Has One Hundred Fifty Members

If the U S was to unilaterally withdrawl from those organizations and agreements the the results would be catastrophic...

[Armstead]

50. You don't correct a mistake by compounding it

First off, as I stated in my original post, I never said that some form of international trade mediation should automatically be scrapped. They are necessary.

The real question is how they are implemented, and what their guiding principle is. The way the current "rules of the road" are set up -- and the forces that created them -- are far more than a mere traffic cop. They are intended to subvert all other considerations beneath the holy mantra of a specific political philosophy and elite interests.

[AzDar]

58. Kick....

:kick:

[cobalt1999]

60. Free Trade is not a complicated issue!?!

Frankly it is damn complicated, especially tossing in foreign relations, background agreements, alliances with other countries, and retaliation tactics.

How the hell can anyone say it's not complicated? Kucinich is the one over-simplifying it and that is scary.

[Armstead]

64. Yes it is complicated -- but the basics are straightforward

Part of the current problem with trade is that it has been made much more complicated than necessary, while advancing an agenda that is oversimplified.


The United States should be promoting trade policies that adequately balance global needs with our own. The so-called "free trade" movement has thrown that balance all out of whack.

Yes. the implimentation of that balance is complicated. But the basic goals and principles are simple.

But when our trade policies are designed to make it possible for an American company to shut down factories here and substitute domestic manufacturing with factories that underpay and abuse workers abroad and destroy the environment in the process, that's just plain wrong.

[On the Road]

61. Free Trade is Not a Complicated Issue?

Would that that were true. I agree that the status quo under NAFTA and the WTO is the wrong solution, but it is very, very easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There is nothing inevitable about eliminating national sovereignty in the pursuit of trade or impoverishing the middle class. European nations have managed to do it while remaining part of the global trade structure. So has Japan.

Clinton's position was not a bad one -- that NAFTA can be made improved. But he did absolutely nothing about it. I expect the same from Hillary.

[Armstead]

65. European sovergnty is being undermined

The pressures of "free trade" policies are pushing European nations to gradually substitute their social safety net with right-wing "free trade" policies.

[calteacherguy]

63. I disagree. I think it's a very complex issue.

Like captitalism in general, it's good if it's practiced in a regulated way for the common good.

[Armstead]

67. I agree with you in principle

However it is simple and obvious that it is not currently being practiced in a regulated way for the common good.