The coming showdown on trade

The Boston Globe ^ | February 3, 2007 | Robert Kuttner

[A. Pole]

GET READY FOR a revolution in trade politics. This week, President Bush reiterated his call for authority to make more trade deals, which expires June 30. He went on the road for a photo-op at a Caterpillar Tractor plant, arguing that trade deals promote exports. But in the new Congress, extension of current "fast track" negotiating authority is a dead letter.

The entering class of Democrats are nearly all fair-traders, demanding much more balanced rules for the trading system. Thirty-nine of the 42 freshma n Democrats in the House recently sent a letter to the Democratic leadership warning their leaders off the Bush trade agenda.

[...]

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was excoriated by senators from both parties when he testified before the Senate Banking Committee to defend his China policy. Paulson recently returned empty-handed from a high-profile China trip, where he made toothless pleas for Beijing to stop manipulating its currency to the detriment of the US-China trade balance.

[...]

The report, released Thursday by the newly organized Horizon Project, called for a healthy economic nationalism, of the sort practiced by every other major trading nation save perhaps Britain. The test, the report argued, should be not what benefits US-based corporations but what is good for America -- its workers, communities, technology base, and ultimately its economy.

[...]

Contrary to the usual premise that the current trading system helps both America and its "trading partners," the report declares that globalization under present rules makes it easier for US multinational corporations to use cheap labor overseas and then import the finished goods back to the United States. "In the process they are building up the capabilities of the emerging Asian states and reducing the capabilities of the United States."

[...]

[A. Pole]

The test [...] should be not what benefits US-based corporations but what is good for America -- its workers, communities, technology base, and ultimately its economy.

Free trade bump

[tom paine 2]

Our trade "negotiators" are gutless idiots.

[William Terrell]

It's a sad day in Hell when the democrats outconservative the republicans.

[Hydroshock]

The free traitors are learning that free trade is a politically untenable position these days.

[Oct1967]

if your definition of "conservative" is trade protection for dying industries and a quasi version of central planning, then I guess democrat party has always been more conservative than the GOP in the modern era.....

Kuttner ranks up there with Krugman when it comes to Economic competence.

[Oct1967]

mmmmm...how politically tenable will zero growth be....wanna bet that employees at CAT and Boeing have far better wages, benefits and futures than employees at GM and other import competing industries????

[lonestar67]

What is good for America is free trade.

GDP grew at 3.5% in 4th quarter.

Thank you President Bush.

[ClaireSolt]

Look up Smoot Hawley and see how a previous generation of so-called progressives took a world wide boom and turned it into the Great Depression.

[Hydroshock]

You do not know that would happen. Besides take a look at what happened the last election in Ohio, Indiana and elsewhere. Free trade was one of the main causes of many lost elections. Deal with it.

[ovrtaxt]

The FairTax would fix this instantly.

And border control, but who's listening...

[raybbr]

What is good for America is free trade.

There is no such thing as free trade. It simply does not exist. Find another explanation for the growth. I think it's because the corporations are geared for short term profit rather than the future of America. Just like Bush.

[ex-snook]

Would this be happening if we did not give away the country's dollars in Wall Street trade deals?

[Dog Gone]

It's a sad day in Hell when the democrats outconservative the republicans.

How do you explain Ronald Reagan's position on trade?

Nancy Pelosi is more conservative than him?

[William Terrell]

The definition of "conservative" is and has always been to conserve values and practices that preserve a union, and nation, and has proven to do so in the past.

Dependence on global trade to provide necessities, both life and national defense, for the people of a country is a dangerous and fragile experiment.

Let us just put our balls the hands of those who hate us and say, "Please, don't squeeze too hard."

Not very bright.

[Oct1967]

yes, i do know that would happen...when you lose jobs at CAT and Boeing and gain only a fraction of new jobs in textiles and bicycle manufacturing, I can confidently predict zero growth...i could care less why the voters in In and OH voted the way they did, doesnt make them right...you seem to think:

1 being in teh majority makes one right regardless of data proving otherwise
2.central planning not the market should dictate what gets produced and what gets consumed


there is no program that is more "Big govt" than protectionism. Govt decides which firms are "winners" and "losers" govt decides what citizens get to consume and as Japan showed in the 1980s with MITI, strategic trade policy leads to govt corruption as the most well connected companies receive preferences from competition not hte most economicaally deserving..in fact we seethat in the US today with ADM

[doc30]

Kill the current trade system and you kill the U.S. economy. So boing won't be building more planes because most are destined for export. Caterpillar, mentioned in the article, makes it's money exporting so they will be killed. A lot of the exported jobs are low skill low wage jobs. Put up trade barriers and factories will invest in automation rather than have huge payrolls.

And on the other side, we import a lot of stuff. Limit imports and you will cause prices to rise here. You might also provoke China to sell off it's dollar holdings and cause the dollar to drop.

Add bad trade policy on top of the higher taxes the dems want and you will have the Pelosi Depression. Trade isolation prolonged the depression in the '30's and it will ruin the economy here, too.

[William Terrell]

Yes.

Reagan also caused the current invasion from Mexico and his wife ratcheted up the war on drugs using Hollywood to the Constitution destroying vehicle it is now.

Reagan was a nice guy, and a conservative in many areas, but trade, border security and encroachment of the feds on state sovereignty are not those those areas.

[Oct1967]

so using you definition, conservative can mean socialist, because it is socialism you advocate to preserve "american values".....i can proudly say that I am certainly not a pre-WW2 conservative....we had those arguments that Pat wants to continue refighting...when we had them in 1936 and 1940, the "conservative" side lost 61-39 in 1936 and 60-40 in 1940

China does not have a gun at our head, if we quit or could not continue to buy their junk, their people would be rioting in the streets from 20% unemployment

[ex-snook]

"there is no program that is more "Big govt" than protectionism."

Nah. A more 'big govt' program is 50,000 page government to government free trade deals where the only imput allowed is from lobbyists and our representatives in Washington are cut out and the public has no idea until the deal is signed.

Protectionism is patriotism.