Posted on 06/14/2015 3:17:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
When the proceeds of growth are not widely shared, the consensus in favor of pro-growth measures cracks.
A decade and a half ago, I filled my days writing speeches urging Congress to grant President George W. Bush fast-track trade authority. If memory serves, I wrote more speeches on that one subject than on any other. Obviously, I didn’t earn my pay: Despite Republican majorities in both Houses, Congress balked.
This past year, President Obama has worked as hard for fast-track authority as President Bush ever did. It now seems that his efforts will prove as unavailing. This time, if anything, the loss is even more heartbreaking, because the prize in reach is bigger than anything on offer in 2001-2002: a Trans-Pacific Partnership on trade.
TPP matters both to the American economy and to American security. China’s admission to the World Trade Organization in 2001 was necessary and unavoidable. How can you sustain a multilateral-trade regime without including the world’s largest exporter and second-largest importer? But the price of China’s inclusion in the WTO was the paralysis of the multilateral trade regime that had evolved since the 1940s: Trade-liberalization negotiations that included China just became too difficult....
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
TPP commits the US to putting specific authorities in the hands of a group of nations with the US and other nations each getting only a single vote on what the rules will be. That's not a trade deal since it doesn't agree trade specific matters.
It cedes authority that rightfully belongs in the hands of those we elect, not in the hands of a majority made up of people other governments appoint.
[America is turning against free trade for the same reason Obama got elected.
We are becoming a nation of socialist whiners that don’t want to compete.
We are becoming French. We want protection and handouts.]
Horse pucky. Conflating the two is like asking, “did you walk to school or bring your lunch”. The free s#!t army is blissfully unaware of this so called “free trade agreement”. The TPP is nothing more than an agenda 21, one world, Marxist wolf dressed as a free trade sheep.
Anyone who thinks these TPA’s are a good idea doesn’t really understand the separation of powers and the reasoning behind them. To support the notion of a TPA simply for expediency is foolish and leads to bad trade deals like NAFTA. If Billy Jeff didn’t have a TPA, NAFTA would be an historical footnote.
The is nothing “free” about “free trade” in our current era, just as there is nothing “free” about our “free market system”. You can’t trade freely with countries that enslave their workers, and you can’t trade freely with countries that ignore written agreements at will.
Bump to your post.
Very well said.
The problem is that what is being negotiated is NOT “free trade”.
We have imported products from all of these countries with low or no tariff’s for decades. If we merely wished to ratify that practice, it would not require thousands of pages of secretly negotiated conditions.
What these agreements are is not free trade in which all companies compete with simple equal rules and new companies with better ideas can join the market with few barriers. These are managed trade agreements, under which only large multinational corporations can file the necessary paperwork; obtain all the necessary licenses and certifications that they meet all labor, safety, and environmental regulations of all the countries involved; and have an army of lawyers to interact with the multinational bureaucracies created by these agreements. If you are Proctor & Gamble and intend to secure 50% of the soap market in the Pacific region, these agreements are great for you. If you are a 10 person company in Dayton, and a store owner in Korea wants to stock the wonderful strawberry-scented soap bars that were in the hotel room when they visited Dayton last summer, good luck navigating all the regulations created by these “free” trade agreements.
My wife and I lived near the Canadian border in the Detroit area from 1986-1991. For the average person, it was an open border with “free trade”. You could drive to Canada for lunch or for a weekend in Toronto with just your driver’s license, and if a passenger forgot that, the border guards would ask a few questions and wave them through. Local businesses accepted US and Canadian coins interchangeably, even with the knowledge that if they lost a few pennies on a Canadian dime, it was still good business. After NAFTA, which was supposed to promote free movement of people and goods, a trip of a few hours into Canada involves passports, customs forms, and armies of border guards. NAFTA may have simplified some transactions for large businesses, but has increased the hurdles experienced by individuals and small businesses.
So called ‘Free Trade’ is like just about every other word in America these days. It has been bastardized beyond recognition.
Not to mention if by ‘free trade’ they really mean massive immigration or some other destruction of us or our economy I am against it too.
+1
The US became the largest economy in history with stringent tariffs in place. That’s why there was no income tax until 1915 or so, the feds got their money from tariffs.
You don’t even know your own history.
When they transfer your means of living to Asians maybe you’ll feel differently; I’m not afraid of a better Asian worker taking my job, but know that many companies are quite willing to hire WORSE Asian workers to save money.
Haven’t you noticed the general decline in workmanship throughout this country over the past decade (in just about every field/position)? Do you think it is coincidence that it is accompanied by a huge rise in the number of foreigners you’re dealing with for said work? American workers that were experienced and talented have been tossed aside for cheaper coolie labor; if companies can pay someone who knows 50% of the work only 25% of the pay, then you end up where we are now.
Robots aren’t “coming”; they are here. While they can do many things, they face constraints (and require large investment of capital).
I don't know about Americans as a whole, but this American says you are exactly correct. I am knee-jerkedly against anything supported by the vile BHO.
And whether they can articulate it or not, that's what people sense is the most dangerous thing about all of this.
Laws masquerading as trade regulations being imposed on us by some jerk who bribed El Presidente of his corruption ridden narcocracy?
The whole point of our Republic was that we would govern ourselves. To then let foreigners seize power by fiat makes the UN look like a upright institution instead of a third world circus.
For one thing, some version of NAFTA was going to happen inevitably. This was part of a strategic, long-term plan to develop North America's energy resources to offset instability among other major oil-producing nations. Basically, NAFTA was a tool to destroy OPEC.
It's no coincidence that by the late 1990s both Canada and Mexico had surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest foreign suppliers of oil to the U.S. This never could have happened without NAFTA.
Ironically, NAFTA in some ways is primarily a threat to Canadian sovereignty ... because it prevents Canada from shooting itself in the foot like it did back in the 1980s when the Trudeau government nationalized the country's energy sector and destroyed the entire energy-producing industry in the process.
Frum gets it wrong. Americans like free trade, but don’t like secret back room deals.
They call it “free trade.” It’s a misnomer right out of Goebel’s play book. We have manipulated trade, with winners and losers, all chosen by our politicians and their donors.
With every deal, the American citizens are losing out. Jobs gone, deficits soaring and no end in sight.
What is your recommendation then?
The US grew to the largest economy by having the lowest tariffs of any large country.
You don’t have to be perfect.
Just the least stupid.
Is it "free trade" when a U.S. company locates an operation in a foreign country simply to get cheaper labor so the product can be shipped back to the U.S. with a price advantage?
Of course not. What "Adam Smith" positioned was the notion that nations should do what they do best and trade with others that way.
Labor Arbitrage has nothing to do with that. And that's all that modern "free trade" is.
I am against all free trade legislation that leads to higher US trade deficits. And so far every single free trade bill/treaty we have passed has done this. Be it NAFTA, GATT, and so on PLUS the one we have right now making Obama an Emperor with fast tracking authority
The U.S. grew to the largest economy in the world when its tariffs were low and its standard of living was considerably lower than that of its trading partners. In other words, we grew to the largest economy in the world when we were considered the "cheap labor" and the "coolies" compared to our European trading partners.
Do you think Americans want to go back to those days?
Okay, why not push back on Walker, Rubio, etc, I think all presidential candidates were for fast track except Paul.
Inquiring minds would love to know.
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.