Fair Trade Trumps Free Trade

[AdvancingTime]

It seems Democrats are on a collision course with the White House as the party’s newly emboldened liberal wing digs in its heels over global free trade deals it claims will drag down US wages and working conditions. Many people see the global economy as currently being run as an ill-regulated business model tilted to favor big business. The benefit to the public is again the promise it will create new jobs, we should expect that will turn out to be largely a myth.

While free trade is important, fair trade is far more so and should trump it as an issue. Developing a long-term sustainable economic system that is balanced would contribute to both global cohesion and the world economy. It is logical that no country can endure a trade deficit year after year. Nationalistic exploitation of trade agreements has occurred throughout history and it is naive to think such schemes will suddenly end. The article below delves deeper into the issues of these agreements.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/05/fair-trade-trumps-free-trade.html

 

[occupied]

If this thing was beneficial to all they would let us read the thing.

 

[occupied]

Also isn't it amazing how strong support is for this thing with Republicans? Blanket opposition for everything else but for this thing it just can't happen fast enough in spite of the fact no one knows what's in it. Guess we will just have to pass it to see.

 

[FA_Q2]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

 

[occupied]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

Fat chance of that, but it will be a very hot topic in the 2016 election, bet on it.

 

[FA_Q2]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

Fat chance of that, but it will be a very hot topic in the 2016 election, bet on it.

I doubt that because I doubt that the left establishment will want it as an issue. Hillary will not oppose free trade.

 

[occupied]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

Fat chance of that, but it will be a very hot topic in the 2016 election, bet on it.

I doubt that because I doubt that the left establishment will want it as an issue. Hillary will not oppose free trade.

What the corporatist democrats want is of no concern with me. Perhaps you are unaware of how much the progressives hate this thing? You are not going to see us support this thing just to please Hillary.

Also there is nothing about this that qualifies as "free trade".

 

[FA_Q2]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

Fat chance of that, but it will be a very hot topic in the 2016 election, bet on it.

I doubt that because I doubt that the left establishment will want it as an issue. Hillary will not oppose free trade.

What the corporatist democrats want is of no concern with me. Perhaps you are unaware of how much the progressives hate this thing? You are not going to see us support this thing just to please Hillary.

Also there is nothing about this that qualifies as "free trade".

I would bet that you will.

Hillary is very likely going to be the nominee. Should she not come out against this, and you know the republican will not, then it will NOT be an issue in the election. That is a simple fact.

The only way this is an issue is if she comes out against it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It seems Democrats are on a collision course with the White House as the party’s newly emboldened liberal wing digs in its heels over global free trade deals it claims will drag down US wages and working conditions. Many people see the global economy as currently being run as an ill-regulated business model tilted to favor big business. The benefit to the public is again the promise it will create new jobs, we should expect that will turn out to be largely a myth.

While free trade is important, fair trade is far more so and should trump it as an issue. Developing a long-term sustainable economic system that is balanced would contribute to both global cohesion and the world economy. It is logical that no country can endure a trade deficit year after year. Nationalistic exploitation of trade agreements has occurred throughout history and it is naive to think such schemes will suddenly end. The article below delves deeper into the issues of these agreements.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/05/fair-trade-trumps-free-trade.html

Democrats win when they embrace free trade. They lose when they embrace restrictionism. Democrats are hell bent on embracing restrictionism. Unfortunately some so-called conservatives seem not to understand economics and the benefits of free trade.
This isnt even an issue among economists, btw. The facts are pretty clear that free trade is a net benefit every time it's tried.

 

[AdvancingTime]

Democrats win when they embrace free trade. They lose when they embrace restrictionism. Democrats are hell bent on embracing restrictionism. Unfortunately some so-called conservatives seem not to understand economics and the benefits of free trade.
This isnt even an issue among economists, btw. The facts are pretty clear that free trade is a net benefit every time it's tried.[/QUOTE]

Free trade is different from the goal of fair trade. It might be said that what has taken place over the years has many ways weakened our economy. Those who have lost their jobs as manufacturing moved overseas might claim they are not better off.

 

[waltky]

Obama's own party offers resistance to TPP...

Historic Pacific trade deal faces skeptics in U.S. Congress
Tue Oct 6, 2015 - Twelve Pacific Rim countries on Monday reached the most ambitious trade pact in a generation, aiming to liberalize commerce in 40 percent of the world's economy in a deal that faces skepticism from U.S. lawmakers.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) pact struck in Atlanta after marathon talks could reshape industries, change the cost of products from cheese to cancer treatments and have repercussions for drug companies and automakers. Tired negotiators worked round the clock over the weekend to settle tough issues such as monopoly rights for new biotech drugs. New Zealand's demand for greater access for its dairy exports was only settled at 5 a.m. EDT (0900 GMT) on Monday. If approved, the pact would cut trade barriers and set common standards from Vietnam to Canada. It would also furnish a legacy-shaping victory for U.S. President Barack Obama, who will promote the agreement on Tuesday in remarks to business leaders in Washington.

The Obama administration hopes the pact will help the United States increase its influence in East Asia and help counter the rise of China, which is not one of the TPP nations. Lawmakers in the United States and other TPP countries must approve the deal. Five years in the making, it would reduce or eliminate tariffs on almost 18,000 categories of goods. Initial reaction from U.S. Congress members, including Democrats and Republicans, ranged from cautious to skeptical. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, warned the pact would cost jobs and hurt consumers. "In the Senate, I will do all that I can to defeat the TPP agreement," he tweeted.

Many of Obama's Democrats, as well as labor groups, fear the TPP will cost manufacturing jobs and weaken environmental laws, while some Republicans oppose provisions to block tobacco companies from suing governments over anti-smoking measures. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who heads the Senate Finance Committee, was wary. "I am afraid this deal appears to fall woefully short," said Hatch, who had urged the administration to hold the line on intellectual property protections, including for drugs. U.S. lawmakers can approve the deal or vote it down, but not amend it.

CURRENCY, DRUGS, DAIRY, AUTO POLICIES

 

[dblack]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

Fat chance of that, but it will be a very hot topic in the 2016 election, bet on it.

And a very cold one in the following legislative session.

 

[dblack]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

Fat chance of that, but it will be a very hot topic in the 2016 election, bet on it.

I doubt that because I doubt that the left establishment will want it as an issue. Hillary will not oppose free trade.

Yet they'll still vote for her, shuffling their feet and grumbling - just like so-called libertarian Republicans will vote for whichever establishment goon their party endorses.

 

[dblack]

Free trade is different from the goal of fair trade.

Assigning 'fair trade' as a goal of government is the problem, not the solution.

 

[FA_Q2]

The establishment always supports the big ticket measures for the monied interests.

One topic I would not mind the left winning.

Fat chance of that, but it will be a very hot topic in the 2016 election, bet on it.

I doubt that because I doubt that the left establishment will want it as an issue. Hillary will not oppose free trade.

Yet they'll still vote for her, shuffling their feet and grumbling - just like so-called libertarian Republicans will vote for whichever establishment goon their party endorses.

And then bitch that nothing changes. Even better, the fact that nothing changes will somehow be the fault of those that did NOT vote for the establishment candidate because that is why the "only other guy" running actually wins.

*sigh*

How do you avoid such things from getting depressing...

 

[kaz]

Also isn't it amazing how strong support is for this thing with Republicans? Blanket opposition for everything else but for this thing it just can't happen fast enough in spite of the fact no one knows what's in it. Guess we will just have to pass it to see.

So Republicans support Obama when he does something they support and they don't support Obama when he does things they oppose. That's quite an insight there, Holmes