Trade deals are no longer good deals

Socialist

Senior Member
Jun 8, 2015
1,866
211
50
America.
"
They enrich corporations and the top 1 percent, but they bust the rest of us
Suppose that by enacting a particular law we’d increase the U.S. gross domestic product. But almost all that growth would go to the richest 1 percent.

The rest of us could buy some products cheaper than before. But those gains would be offset by losses of jobs and wages.

This is pretty much what “free trade” has brought us over the last two decades.

I used to believe in trade agreements. That was before the wages of most Americans stagnated and a relative few at the top captured just about all the economic gains.

Recent trade agreements have been wins for big corporations and Wall Street, along with their executives and major shareholders. They get better access to foreign markets and billions of consumers.

They also get better protection for their intellectual property — patents, trademarks and copyrights. And for their overseas factories, equipment and financial assets.

But those deals haven’t been wins for most Americans.

The fact is, trade agreements are no longer really about trade. Worldwide tariffs are already low. Big American corporations no longer make many products in the United States for export abroad.

The biggest things big American corporations sell overseas are ideas, designs, franchises, brands, engineering solutions, instructions and software.

Google, Apple, Uber, Facebook, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Microsoft and Pfizer, for example, are making huge profits all over the world.

But those profits don’t depend on American labor — apart from a tiny group of managers, designers and researchers in the United States.

To the extent big American-based corporations any longer make stuff for export, they make most of it abroad and then export it from there for sale all over the world — including for sale back here in the United States.

The Apple iPhone is assembled in China from components made in Japan, Singapore and a half-dozen other locales. The only things coming from the United States are designs and instructions from a handful of engineers and managers in California.

Apple even stows most of its profits outside the United States so it doesn’t have to pay American taxes on them.

This is why big American companies are less interested than they once were in opening other countries to goods exported from the United States and made by American workers.

They’re more interested in making sure other countries don’t run off with their patented designs and trademarks. Or restrict where they can put and shift their profits.

In fact, today’s “trade agreements” should really be called “global corporate agreements” because they’re mostly about protecting the assets and profits of these global corporations rather than increasing American jobs and wages. The deals don’t even guard against currency manipulation by other nations.

According to Economic Policy Institute, the North American Free Trade Act cost U.S. workers almost 700,000 jobs, thereby pushing down American wages.

Since the passage of the Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, America’s trade deficit with Korea has grown more than 80 percent, equivalent to a loss of more than 70,000 additional U.S. jobs.

The U.S. goods trade deficit with China increased $23.9 billion last year, to $342.6 billion. Again, the ultimate result has been to keep U.S. wages down.

The old-style trade agreements of the 1960s and 1970s increased worldwide demand for products made by American workers, and thereby helped push up American wages.

The new-style global corporate agreements mainly enhance corporate and financial profits, and push down wages.

That’s why big corporations and Wall Street are so enthusiastic about the upcoming Trans Pacific Partnership — the giant deal among countries responsible for 40 percent of the global economy that Congress just put on a fast track.

That deal would give giant corporations even more patent protection overseas. It would also guard their overseas profits.

And it would allow them to challenge any nation’s health, safety and environmental laws that stand in the way of their profits — including our own.

The Obama administration calls the Trans Pacific Partnership a key part of its “strategy to make U.S. engagement in the Asia-Pacific region a top priority.”

Translated: The White House thinks it will help the United States contain China’s power and influence.

But it will make giant U.S. global corporations even more powerful and influential.

White House strategists seem to think such corporations are accountable to the U.S. government. Wrong. At most, they’re answerable to their shareholders, who demand high share prices whatever that requires.

I’ve seen firsthand how effective Wall Street and big corporations are at wielding influence with political leaders — using lobbyists, campaign donations and subtle promises of future jobs to get the global deals they want.

Global deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership will boost the profits of Wall Street and big corporations and make the richest 1 percent even richer.

But they’ll bust the rest of America.

"
http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...e-deals-are-no-longer-good-deals/201502180090
 
We can't really be sure what will end up in the TPP. That's one problem. It's a good bet that the lobbyists crafting it don't have most people's best interests in mind.

International trade deals generally tend to subvert local control.

I mostly agree with the OP. Communities should have economic sovereignty on a local level. Here, we're forming a CCA (Community Choice Aggregation) where we'll be taking the power purchasing decisions away from the utility (Pacific Gas and Electric). The idea is that we'll be inclined to buy clean electricity that's locally produced, lowering our bills and creating local jobs. I wonder what the TPP would say if we as a community, State or Nation wanted to ban fracking, for example.

Pat Buchanan is a well-spoken economic patriot from the right. Elisabeth Warren is one from the left. All the corporate sell-outs are globalists. In the short term globalism fosters peace, because billionaires have assets spread all over and they don't want them messed up. Also, anyone who doesn't go along with the program gets booted (Saddam Hussein, Kaddafi, etc.). In the long run a cancer somewhere in the world spreads to the global economy and you get squabbling over assets between billionaires and a world war.

Keynes wrote an interesting essay on National Self-Sufficiency. He changed his mind about protectionism in his middle years. John Maynard Keynes National Self-Sufficiency 1933 ;

"I was brought up, like most Englishmen, to respect free trade not only as an economic doctrine which a rational and instructed person could not doubt but almost as a part of the moral law. I regarded departures from it as being at the same time an imbecility and an outrage. I thought England's unshakable free-trade convictions, maintained for nearly a hundred years, to be both the explanation before man and the justification before heaven of her economic supremacy…


Looking again today at the statements of these fundamental truths which I then gave, I do not find myself disputing them. Yet the orientation of my mind is changed; and I share this change of mind with many others. Partly, indeed, my background of economic theory is modified.


I sympathise, therefore, with those who would minimise, rather than with those who would maximise, economic entanglement between nations. Ideas, knowledge, art, hospitality, travel - these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible; and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.


For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation between countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years."

 
We were never going to make trade illegal.

dear, whether you make all trade illegal or some of it the effect is the same just to a different degree. We get poorer.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

After the TPP passes, what will be legal and illegal will be determined by an international court of arbitration.

yes dear but the general idea is to expand free trade so we all get richer!
 
yes dear but the general idea is to expand free trade so we all get richer!

There's a time for expanding free trade and a time for economic patriotism as defined by conservatives like Patrick Buchanon.

dear, the golden rule is, the more with whom you trade the richer you get.
Any lib fool moves to keep people in the horse and buggy industry are stupid!!

Do you understand?
 
Any lib fool moves to keep people in the horse and buggy industry are stupid!!

Is Patrick Buchanon a liberal? One of the fallacies of free trade is that other countries are going to abide by any sort of global rule system.

Pat:
"But in the late 20th century, America abandoned as “protectionism” what Henry Clay had called The American System. We gave up on economic patriotism. We gave up on the idea that the U.S. economy should be structured for the benefit of America and Americans first.


We embraced globalism.


The ideological basis of globalism was that, just as what was best for America was a free market where U.S. companies produce and sell anywhere freely and equally in the U.S., this model can be applied worldwide.


We can create a global economy where companies produce where they wish and sell where they wish.


As one might expect, the big boosters of the concept were the transnational corporations. They could now shift plants and factories out of the high-wage, well-regulated U.S. economy to Mexico, China and India, then to Bangladesh, Haiti and Cambodia, produce for pennies, ship their products back to the U.S., sell here at the same old price, and pocket the difference.


As some who were familiar with the decline of Great Britain predicted, this would lead inexorably to the deindustrialization of America, a halt to the steady rise in U.S. workers’ wages and standard of living, and the enrichment of a new class of corporatists."


Meanwhile, other nations, believing yet in economic nationalism, would invade and capture huge slices of the U.S. market for their home companies, their “national champions.” The losers would be the companies that stayed in the USA and produced for the USA, with American workers.


And so it came to pass. U.S. real wages have not risen in 40 years."
 
Or, how about an independent? Anyone remember Ross Perot 1992? Do you hear that giant sucking sound?

"The "giant sucking sound" was United States Presidential candidate Ross Perot's colorful phrase for what he believed would be the negative effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which he opposed.


In the second 1992 Presidential Debate, Ross Perot argued:


We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory South of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,...have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car— have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south.
...when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals
."
 
Buchanan is an old crank who lost it long ago.
If you prefer the liberal side of the aisle...


bullshit

The liberal side of the aisle is bullshit?


Yes it is, including spineless, myopic protectionism.

liberals want to protect our industry so it does not have to compete, so our goods become second and third rate, and so our country then becomes second and then third rate. They spied for Stalin so there is no surprise.


The USSR, and East Germany, for example, did not produce one single consumer innovation during their existence! Do you know why?


In 1980 you paid 10 years salary in Hungary for a car without a gas gage (dip stick instead) that had to be backed up a hill because of a gravity fed carburetor. They employed engineers by the 1000's all of whom swore that was the best they could do.

It is not until you have had years and years of free Republican capitalist competition that you have any idea how many engineers are needed, at what salary, to produce what quality.

Can you understand the analogy?
 
I think it is telling that he complained about trade agreements then referenced our trade relationship with China and not Canada.

We have an unhealthy trade relationship with China. It is not a free trade agreement, it is basically an agreement where they walk all over US interests and we do nothing about it. The TPP is in large part an attempt to establish leverage with China.

There are some truths about what he said though. The nature of global commerce does change the labor landscape significantly. The benefit of owning a patent or a corporation or whatever else is changing and our domestic policy has to be able to adapt to this changing world. The solution is not to pretend that we can stop the world from changing through protectionism but find a way to adapt and work with our trade partners to adapt to this new world.
 

Forum List

Back
Top