Your jobs lost to here.
Posted on 05/14/2015 11:16:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
For a long time, there was a bipartisan consensus for free trade. President George H.W. Bush, a Republican, negotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Democrat Bill Clinton got it passed. It prevailed in the Senate in 1993 with the support of 27 Democrats and 34 Republicans. The consensus wasn't unanimous by any means, but it was broad enough to steadily advance the cause.
Tuesday's Senate vote against considering a bill to give President Barack Obama "fast-track authority" for trade deals suggests those days are gone. Only one Democrat supported it, with 42 opposed -- led by Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Economic anxiety, hostility to foreigners, resentment of large corporations and distrust of Obama -- in both parties -- have dissolved the old coalition. Even Hillary Clinton is on the fence.
It's easy to spurn free trade now partly because we enjoy so many rewards from it already. Every senator who voted "no" should be required by law to drive only American-made cars built no later than 1975, before the influx of Japanese makes brought about a gigantic improvement in quality and reliability.
They should also have to surrender their iPhones, assembled in China, and their flat-screen TVs, made in Korea and Japan. And to buy all their kids' and grandkids' toys from domestic suppliers. And to give up Colombian coffee, Guatemalan bananas and Chilean grapes, along with 91 percent of all the seafood they eat.
As it is, though, those lawmakers and citizens who oppose giving the president trade promotion authority have nothing to worry about. They get to show their disgust with free trade while enjoying all its bounty. If Obama doesn't get the deal he has been negotiating with 11 Pacific nations, we won't lose the benefits of existing imports. We just won't get the benefits of additional commerce.
The prevailing complaint is that trade deals ship American jobs abroad and lower American wages. But the effect is greatly exaggerated. It's true that many U.S. industries competing with overseas rivals have seen companies shrink and jobs disappear. That regrettable pattern, however, has also emerged in sectors that are largely domestic.
Big airlines like Delta and United have gone bankrupt, and their unions have been squeezed, because travelers flocked to lower-cost domestic carriers. The Big Three automakers' chief problem is "Japanese" cars built in places like Kentucky and Ohio.
Newspapers haven't lost revenue because of foreign competition, but because so much advertising has migrated to the Internet. Bookstores have vanished thanks to a Seattle company named Amazon.
U.S. manufacturing output is nearly 50 percent higher today than in 1994, when NAFTA took effect. So why has employment shrunk? Because companies and workers have become more productive, allowing them to turn out more goods with less labor.
If you think the problem is that foreigners sell us too much and buy too little from us, the Pacific trade deal ought to be just your thing. It would have minimal effect on our imports, but would give a significant boost to our exports.
The United States already has among the lowest tariff rates in the world, averaging about 2 percent. One of the main effects of free trade agreements we reach with other nations is to make them slash their duties, which are typically higher. Another purpose of this accord is to pry open closed foreign markets in agricultural products and services, allowing U.S. companies to sell more.
Eight years of economic contraction and turmoil have put a lot of politicians and constituencies into a defensive crouch, treating any change as a threat. But it wasn't trade that caused the U.S. housing crash or the financial meltdown. In fact, exports have been one of the main engines of growth in recent years.
Nor can we simply close ourselves off from global commerce. If we shun trade agreements with Pacific nations, the Chinese will be happy to step in. Globalization is going to expand no matter what we do. Trade negotiations are a way for us to ensure that when it does, the rules applied by other governments don't put our companies at an unfair disadvantage.
Many Democrats used to realize there is no future in hunkering down behind trade barriers. In 1993, one of them was Sen. Ted Kennedy, who said, "All of the problems that working families face ... will be even worse if NAFTA is defeated." His seat is now occupied by Elizabeth Warren.
How?
...”selling American workers down the river”....
Oh Indeed!......the huge worldwide ‘placement’ of immigrants, refugees, illegals in Western Countries goes hand in glove with this Trade deal.
Did you read the article today where the British are clamoring loudly now about all these refugees, coming from third world countries taking jobs from the local population..and as much lowering the wages of the people?
This is and will continue now to grow here...and if this deal goes through after all the stage playing, then the US will surely see that same equation here.
We tried free trading with a protectionist world - it failed.
Decline of American manufacturing, especially in the rust belt.
I support Free Exports-we have plenty of UN drops and IA’s to export. We can export “human capital” as described in the Common Core curriculum.
This item from the article really jumped out at me:
U.S. manufacturing output is nearly 50 percent higher today than in 1994, when NAFTA took effect. So why has employment shrunk? Because companies and workers have become more productive, allowing them to turn out more goods with less labor.
I'm not even sure if the numbers are correct, but they sure seem reasonable based on what I know and I've observed.
I don't know if "free trade" is good for America in the long run, but I do know that many of the arguments on one side or another are irrelevant. I've long said that the number of American manufacturing jobs lost to foreign competition over the last few decades is tiny compared to what has been lost to automation and improved efficiency. I don't know what the answer to this dilemma may be, but in the long run I don't think we're going to have much control over our future here in the U.S. anyway.
Your jobs lost to here.
They are doing just fine now;
The problem with trade is not with the rest of the world - just Asia.
True free trade wouldn’t involve these treaties and government actions. But, we’ve never been that free and never will be.
The latest company to announce a new plant in the U.S. is Volvo. They're looking to build a $500 million facility in South Carolina. This story has played out at least 15-20 times over the last couple of decades ... always involving foreign companies, and always in the South.
skittles and unicorns will be flying out of my butt with expanded free trade!
what a shill
See you one an raise you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnnqMRW5iKM
That’s one of thousands of place I’ll bet.
If you want free trade just remove tariff's and restrictions against the other nation.
These are managed trade deals, that is why they have to be kept secret.
Part of the reason appears to be that the big hollywood and media crony capitalists are pushing hard to use it as a vehicle to further destroy copyright elsewhere around the globe. I was perusing the Project Gutenberg site today and found This link about some apparent copyright implications.
One thing they want is to extend copyright terms in countries like Australia. If you go to Project Gutenberg Australia you'll find that you can download copies of many of George Orwell's books for free. The supporters of perpetual copyright want to do away with that.
almost a repeat ... and not current ... but just as good ... thanx.
One value of that older video, is that he hasn’t changed his mind over time.
Right ... but I’m afraid Trump is like Gingrich .... Good men that won’t see the presidency
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.