I Simply Do Not Understand Obama's Support Of The TPP.

[TheMastersNemesis]

He must realize that an American middle class CANNOT exist with such an agreement. And we would have NO sovereignty under such a deal. Besides the TPP is primarily a GOP initiative. And any Democrat who votes for fast track or TPP would be damaged. We found out how voting for NAFTA effected Democrats. Shortly after the GOP won the House after 40 years. And Clinton and the Dems are blamed for NAFTA and not the GOP where it belongs.

TPP is the best gift that Obama can give the GOP. And it is the worst thing he can do to Dems. TPPS means that our workers will compete with emerging markets like Vietnam where the minimum wage is 23 cents an hour.

So I am stumped whether Obama is a corporate Dem or not.

[polichick]

1. Of course he's a corporate Dem.

[warrant46]

72. Wages of 23 cents an hour wow

How long will it take to buy a gallon of gas ?

Looks like 2 days of work

[grahamhgreen]

83. Reality.

[99Forever]

2. I am not stumped at all.

The answer is quite clear to anyone taking a HONEST look at it.

[TheMastersNemesis]

4. In A Way I Am Not Stumped Too.

I worked for DOL for 24 years and remember when Clinton joined Gingrich and pressured Dems to vote for NAFTA and other trade deals. I knew right away what was going to happen. And it did on steroids. And it really is much worse than most Americans realize. And I can assure you that the deterioration will get much worse until NAFTA is modified and outsourcing reversed somehow.

There really is not future for the younger generation now with short term gypsy jobs. You cannot build wealth or equity under the present job market. What most workers do not know that boomers are finding out is that by the time you are middle age you are already out to pasture. And in middle age you are facing lower wages when need long term employment with prospects of higher income.

I see the economy much differently because of my experience. And the future prospects look very bad. The younger generation having all these children now will not have the money and resources in middle age to take care of them. That is because corporate America will throw them out of the job market.

[Recursion]

8. Funny, that period you described is the one period of real wage growth in 40 years

"Free" trade (yes, I hate that term too) is good for American agriculture and prototype/industrial manufacturing (since we for the most part build the factories and plant that go up in other countries). It's also good for Americans who, you know, buy things. It's bad for medium and light manufacturing, but things have been bad for that sector for decades.

[daleanime]

12. ........

[Recursion]

14. Yes?

Got a more substantive response?

We're currently manufacturing more in the US than we have at any point in the past.

[daleanime]

15. No,

Just wanted to leave my impression.

[progressoid]

22. Agreed.

Your impression is accurate.

[Enthusiast]

48. Plus one. I share your impression.

The TPP is indefensible.

[truedelphi]

104. I support and share your expression also. n/t

[sabrina 1]

123. I agree! n/t

[Th1onein]

32. More what? Meth? Fast food? Prisons?

[Recursion]

33. Goods, in total, by inflation-adjusted dollar value

We do more manufacturing today, in the US, than at any point in history. We just don't need nearly as many people to do it. Agriculture is the same way.

[Th1onein]

34. You got a link for that assertion? Are you counting cooking hamburgers as manufacturing?

[RC]

62. Why not? bu$h did.

Count cooking hamburgers as manufacturing. Each and every one counts, yanoe? Therefore we even out manufacture everyone in the world, including China, where we outsource most of our jobs to.

[cali]

43. It's not good for jobs. and it's really not a trade agreement

it's about copyright and corporate rights, among other things that benefit corporations and stiff working people.

[Recursion]

91. Copyright is great for some working people

I'd have trouble selling software I write without it. And yes, a huge part of this is about IP, trying to get more money out of China back to US producers. See China's recent decision to open up the Internet in Shanghai, etc.

[cali]

100. EFF certainly disagrees

they've done a lot of work on this.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/new-leaked-tpp-puts-fair-use-risk

[truedelphi]

114. And in terms of copyright - it is especially about

the Big Agri firms and their need to patent the rights to every living plant and crop that exists across the face of the globe!

People like myself that are involved in self publishing already know that there are enough national and international copyright protections. It's just that there is no real way that small indie producers of content can stop piracy of product.

[Th1onein]

86. Notice you didn't respond to my request to a link for your assertion. Figures.

Just floating BS out there, huh? Is that how the "conservative Democrats" do it now? I also notice you said nothing about the fact that making burgers is classified as "manufacturing," too.

[Recursion]

88. Sorry, I assumed you could google

Since you apparently can't:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/





(Notice both of those are three years old)



(China passed us only 2 years ago; we're pretty much tied right now)

The myth that America is not manufacturing anymore is, well, a myth

[Th1onein]

95. You made the assertion, not me. Of course, when flipping HAMBURGERS are counted as manufacturing

jobs, those numbers are going to be inflated. Which they are, of course.

Sorry, not convinced.

[Recursion]

96. Line cooks at McDonalds are not counted as manufacturing

Industrial workers assembling pink sludge into Big Macs in factories, of course, are because they are manufacturing.

[Th1onein]

126. Sorry, no link.

[Recursion]

127. True, you did not post any link to back up your claim that line cooks are counted

as manufacturing.

[pampango]

97. Here's another graph of the change in manufacturing output and employment.

http://emsnews.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/nuclear-wars-and-earthquakes-increase-economic-problems/

[Recursion]

99. Huh. I thought I included that one

That was part of my point. We manufacture much more, with much fewer people

[pa28]

70. Fast food was re-classified as manufacturing about ten years ago.

Combine that with meth, prisons and military production and apparently you've got a healthy manufacturing sector.

Hooray!

[Recursion]

89. The huge factories where McDonalds assembles hamburgers are classed as manufacturing

The guy heating them in the little microwave thing isn't. I'm not sure why you don't think the big hamburger factories are "manufacturing"; they're certainly not "cooking" in any real sense.

[rhett o rick]

76. Does that include McDonald's and Burger King? That statistic isnt helping American

workers.

[Recursion]

90. As I said, we're manufacturing more with much fewer people

Now, look up this guy to see the social impact of productivity increases...

[rhett o rick]

93. So manufacturing more isnt necessarily a good thing. We need to protect American

jobs. Dont you agree?

[Recursion]

94. I don't think we need to protect *manufacturing* jobs anymore than wheat threshing jobs

The country used to be about 75% employed in agriculture. The fact that we don't need that many people to grow food anymore isn't a bad thing, though as the story of Ludd in England shows it caused a lot of pain in the transition.

I don't think we need to protect manufacturing jobs per se any more than we should have destroyed the automatic wheat threshers; I think we need a much stronger safety net and strong public training and hiring programs in other fields (or, better yet, a liveable Guaranteed Minimum Income) if the private sector isn't pulling its own weight.

[WCGreen]

73. It dismantled the big manufacturing concerns concentrated in the Midwest...

But then again, a lot of companies escaped Union "Tyrants" by moving everything that had a Northern Union to deal with to all the Right to Work states in the South.

There are a lot of reasons why the middle class is shrinking fasted than a snowball in a skillet.

[rhett o rick]

75. It may be good for the giant agriculture corporations but not for workers.

We have lost almost our complete textile industry. So called Free Trade isnt sustainable for the American worker.

[rhett o rick]

77. Do you support the TPP? If so, please explain why. nm

[Recursion]

87. Did I say I support it? No

It's also just a symptom of capital flight, not the cause of it.

[jsr]

19. .

[indepat]

81. Neither am I stumped: ye shall be known by your works and this and the Keystone Pipeline would

forever define those who made them happen imo.

[Tigress DEM]

3. Maybe just a dirt magnet... pulling them out of the wall to get caught?

[truebluegreen]

80. If he were doing that, "they" would have been caught and exposed long ago.

Instead, they are almost ready to push their dream of a corporate deal through Congress

[MannyGoldstein]

5. He's already signed three "free" trade agreements

Korea, Colombia, and Panama. The Korean one is predicted to kill many, many American jobs.

[Chan790]

59. Ah yes, the f**king KORUS agreement.

The people responsible for that one should all be given a knife and fork, dressed in loincloths and set adrift in a slow boat devoid of supplies in the general direction of Seoul. The ones that survive win a return trip.

Fucking brutal for American workers and those working in the ROK to boost worker protections and wages. Fucking brutal for everybody but the fat cats.

[grahamhgreen]

82. I like to use the term COSTLY trade agreements.... It's more accurate and costly is the opposite

of free

[truedelphi]

101. That's an excellent reframe of the term.

Much appreciated.

[Recursion]

6. It's mostly about soybeans and wheat

That's really what US trade policy is about.

Also, the alarmism doesn't help. The middle class will still exist. National sovereignty will still exist. This is the same stuff people said about NAFTA, because it has pretty much the same language. Some groups will be better off, others will be worse off.

[99Forever]

17. ......

[SomethingFishy]

21. "Some groups will be better off, others will be worse off." Exactly..

Corporations and Banks and The Wealthy will be "better off" and the rest of us will all share in a giant shit sandwich. Just like with NAFTA.

[progressoid]

23. Middle class?

[Recursion]

25. Looks like NAFTA slowed that decline, doesn't it?

It was falling much faster in the 1970s and 1980s than 1990s. Now, some of that is just that most of the offshoring had already been done by the time NAFTA hit, but still. For that matter, I think people confuse the causality here; trade agreements are the symptom rather than the cause: they're governments' attempts to have some control over what is already happening.

But, really, we mostly just want to sell soybeans.

[Art_from_Ark]

27. If all the US wanted to do was sell soybeans,

then there would be no need for Japan's participation in TPP, since Japan is already America's 3rd largest soybean customer, and 2/3 of its soybean imports come from the US.

[Recursion]

41. We'd like to keep doing that, and expand it to other asian countries

That's the "T" in "TPP".

[Enthusiast]

49. Who is this "we" you speak of? The 1%? The multinational corporations?

The American people want nothing whatever to do with more of these damaging free trade deals.

You are really alone on this love of the TPP.

[Recursion]

92. Well, my family who grow soybeans, for one

You are really alone on this love of the TPP.

Only on DU would people pretend my description of the TPP (which I oppose) is "love". I miss when this board actually read the content of posts rather than taking them as signals for a duel.

The question asked was why anybody would support this; I pointed out that there are several sectors of the economy that TPP helps.

[Petrushka]

46. As Monsanto might say:

"All your soybeans belong to us."

[cali]

45. one more time: this is not really a trade agreement.

there is relatively little about trade in the 20+ chapters. And yes, national sovereignty will still exist but it will be weakened.

The groups that will be better off, are not the working people of this or any other country.

[truedelphi]

102. Have you bothered to look into the effect that NAFTA had on the jobs in this country?

Or the situation in Mexico, where after NAFTA went, through the banks in Mexico were in big trouble, sot he USA bailed them out to the tune of 20 billion bucks. That that meant the inflation that hit the middle and lower incomed in Mexico reduced their wages from 87 cents an hour to 45 cents an hour.

According to research done by David Swanson, "The United States had about 20 million manufacturing jobs before NAFTA, and lost about 5 million of them, including the closure of more than 60,000 facilities. Imports have soared while the growth of exports has slowed. Millions of service jobs have been offshored too, of course. The TPP is referred to by those who have seen drafts of it (and you can read some draft chapters online) as NAFTA on steroids. It expands on NAFTA’s policies. The TPP would provide special benefits to, and eliminate risks for, companies that offshore jobs. Vietnam’s wages are even lower than China’s. An average day’s wage in China is $4.11. In Vietnam it’s $2.75.

"The TPP will push U.S. wages downward. And if NAFTA’s impact on Mexico is any guide, the TPP won’t end up being seen as beneficial to Vietnam either, especially when some other country decides that it can pay workers even less than Vietnam does."

More fromSwanson on the TPP and how people aren't even allowed to comment on it:


"There is also, of course, nothing hidden about the hand of corporate trade agreements. These are not agreements aimed at maximizing competition by preventing monopolies. These are very lengthy and detailed agreements that include protection and expansion of monopolies. Rather than relying on the magic of the marketplace, a corporate trade agreement relies on the influence of lobbyists. Just as the corruption of the military industrial complex helps explain a global military buildup in the absence of a national enemy — I mean an enemy that is a nation, not a handful of criminals who ought to be indicted and prosecuted rather than blown up along with whomever’s nearby — so, too, the corporate ownership of our government explains our government’s trade policies.

"The senators were discussing how they would mitigate the damage of what they were about to support. They planned to try to help find jobs for some of the people they would throw out of work. I thought I should point out to them that they could just leave everybody in their current jobs. I was hoping they would realize that on their own. I didn’t want to be rude and interrupt. But it seemed an important enough point. So I spoke up. And they arrested me.

"Then the senators discussed Korean and U.S. tariffs on beef. A woman in the audience spoke up and asked why we couldn’t just leave the Korean beef in Korea and the U.S. beef in the United States instead of shipping beef both ways across the ocean. They arrested her. They arrested everybody who said anything. In the first year of the previous agreement made with Korea, U.S. exports to Korea fell 10% and the U.S. trade deficit with Korea rose 37%. The same sort of results are likely with a new one. On the plus side, Congress was kept safe from interruptions. The charges carried some months in jail, as I recall. Four of us made deals in court that kept us out of jail but banned us from Capitol Hill for 6 months. In the next courtroom over, some friends were convicted of speaking out against torture when some committee chairman hadn’t asked them to. And straight across the hall, that same day, another friend was told she’d completed her probation for having interrupted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in the Capitol, a punishment imposed even though Netanyahu had thanked her for speaking and bragged about how she’d have been treated worse in Iran — although the assault she suffered in the U.S. Capitol put her in a neck brace."

[Recursion]

105. Jobs? Employment went up after NAFTA

Manufacturing employment went down, like it has constantly since the 60s.

[truedelphi]

111. The emplyment going up had more to do with

Three things:

One) The real estate market started to take off in 1996 to 2006. Lots of jobs created in that field. By 2000, the housing bubble was keeping many people employed, real estate agents and brokers, the entire mortgage and title industry, all the trades people upgrading homes so they could be flipped, etc.

Two) Unexpectedly, the stock market took off. Analysts finally realized as an explanation for the stock market boom, that the Baby Boomers were now as age group who were coming into some wealth (as you reach your forties, and early fifties, the likelihood of parents and other older relatives dying and leaving behind their money, stocks, and houses and other property goes up.) Boomers were told that stocks and bonds might not be the best thing to do, but what else can a person do with newly minted wealth?

Three) By the end of the 1990's the dot com bubble was pervasive, in the Boston Silicon Alley area, in Silicon Valley and other spots across the nation. I watched coffee house after coffee house in the S. F. Bay Area, suddenly invigorated by the hordes of new arrivals, most under the age of 35, who were putting together valuable "com" businesses. While other young people put together not such valuable "com" businesses, which columnist Jon Carroll referred to disparagingly as "Canaries in a hurry dot com."

President Clinton was able to benefit from this new bubble, and fortunately for him, when the dot com upsurge finally collapsed, he was already one foot out the door. But before the collapse, the surge in tax revenue had helped him return the nation to a surplus in terms of governmental debt. (And part of that was his refusal to engage in a war against Iraq, telling the PNAC crowd, "No!" when he was asked to consider a war there.)

[SamKnause]

7. TPP

It is really very simple.

He represents the interest of the 1%.

The 1% have the best representation their money can buy; attorney's, politicians, lobbyists etc.

The 99% are expected to follow the law and pay taxes, but they have no representation.

The Supreme Court has given corporations more rights than living breathing humans.

Globalization is the goal of the capitalists.

They do not care what country their capitalists activities destroy.

They do not care about people, or the damage they cause the environment.

They are selfish and sadistic.

They worship money and power.

They will do anything to get it.

They will do anything to keep it.

[Enthusiast]

50. Corporations and the 1% have not really changed since the 19th Century.

They want to return to the days of their unchallenged supremacy of the gilded age.

[deutsey]

57. As Krugman pointed out yesterday,

"It’s much closer to pure class warfare, a defense of the right of the privileged to keep and extend their privileges. It’s not Ayn Rand, it’s Ancien Régime."


The Ancien Régime (French pronunciation: ​[ɑ̃.sjɛ̃ ʁeˈʒim], Old or Former Regime) was the monarchic, aristocratic, social and political system established in the Kingdom of France from approximately the 15th century until the later 18th century ("early modern France&quot under the late Valois and Bourbon dynasties. The administrative and social structures of the Ancien Régime were the result of years of state-building, legislative acts (like the Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts), internal conflicts and civil wars, but they remained a confusing patchwork of local privilege and historic differences until the French Revolution ended the system.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien_R%C3%A9gime

[Oilwellian]

98. I would say...

we're already there.

[Enthusiast]

106. You are right, of course.............nt

[dkf]

9. Do we know exactly what is in it?

I know they were negotiating in secret. I'm not sure I understand exactly what the implications are.

[TheMastersNemesis]

10. It Is Very LIkely To Be LIke NAFTA. It Will Be More Far Reaching.

For one it will encourage more jobs to be sent overseas. And worker and environmental protections will be subject to review by a WTO type board. If a law infringes on profit the aggrieved party can sue. The fact that TPP is so secret should tell you something. Grayson has read it but is BARRED from discussing a SINGLE detail of it. Plus "fast track" approval is being pushed which means an up or down vote. It would be pretty much a secret law passed without amendment.

It is like buying a car not ever seeing it or knowing what the model is until after the contract is signed. TPP smells terrible from every angle.

I worked at DOL and I know what the business world is up to. Most American workers are clueless and their anti labor and anti union sentiment plays right into the hands of the globalists.

[dkf]

11. Why doesn't just the secrecy itself get this put on the radar?

Where are the Democrats? This party concerns me in that we seem to have given up on what we would be fighting for tooth and nail if a R was President.

I would not have guessed we were stronger blocking bad legislation before compared to now when we have the White House and the Senate. It's all backwards.

[dkf]

13. Just read this post and my stomach is sinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023731710

[KoKo]

64. dfk...Public Citizen has the best detailed explanation and links

that I've found. Check it out and see if this answers some of your questions.

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

[AnotherMcIntosh]

16. They say that he is very smart. Could he be planning for his retirement?

[Doctor_J]

18. you're stumped whether he's a corporatist or not?

Come on.

[HooptieWagon]

20. Obama's support of TPP is easily explained.

He's been told to.... By his corporate donors....Whose lobbyists are writing the agreement....In secret.

[mwrguy]

24. Obama has some tricks up his sleeve

We can't be expected to understand them all until he's done.

[Th1onein]

31. Oh, good grief, REALLY?

Unbelievable that anyone is still buying into that line.

[Skittles]

35. I think mwrguy is being sarcastic

I least I hope he was

[WilliamPitt]

63. gfbnr'tbj]pobm

^^^ face into keyboard ^^^

[Left Coast2020]

26. As Ed says "Lets Get To Work"

...and kill this thing before the clock runs out.

Glad Ed is staying on this. NAFTA could be trashed too as far as I'm concerned.

[Enthusiast]

53. MSNBC will slap Ed down.

They won't allow any criticism of the TPP.

[solarhydrocan]

28. "Besides the TPP is primarily a GOP initiative." not according to this

...
She’s pressed the case for U.S. business in Cambodia, Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries in China’s shadow. She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton's Business Legacy at the State Department
By Elizabeth Dwoskin January 10, 2013
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p1

She’s also taken a leading part in drafting the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade pact that would give U.S. companies a leg up on their Chinese competitors.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/hillary-clintons-business-legacy-at-the-state-department#p2

[hughee99]

125. You mean the person I keep hearing is our inevitable next president?

I wonder if she'll campaign on fighting the TPP? Then people will be shocked if she gets into office and doesn't do anything about it.

[2naSalit]

29. Saw printouts for this

at the PO this evening:

http://www.march-against-monsanto.com/

It's going to be happening in my near-by little town of under 2000! It seems to be including the tpp in the argument.

Why does all this stuff happen in October? Like OWS? It's snowing here already. guess it'll be interesting at five below.

[Th1onein]

30. Nth dimensional chess and shit, doncha know?

[uponit7771]

36. Isn't this the 124on234x234 time were Obama is "supposed" to fuck something up and doesn't?

...doesn't the premature outragulation get old after a while?!

[sendero]

37. Virtually every facet of his ..

... tenure would point in this direction. I think people should stop listening to Obama's talk and start paying attention to his actions instead.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. +1 That's it, right there. n/t

[Democracyinkind]

38. I wish people would stop pretending that this is a free trade agreement.

It's actually a free court agreement. We already have free tradish agreements with most TPP participants.

Corporate sovereignity anyone?

[Laelth]

39. I don't understand it either. Looking for a good explanation. n/t

-Laelth

[Recursion]

42. Soybeans

You need look no farther than soybeans, and primary industrial plant. We're still #1 in the world in both, and we want to keep selling them.

[Laelth]

47. You sure this isn't a move to lock up markets before China can enter them?

The article cited above, referencing Hillary Clinton, leads me to believe this is American geo-politics and foreign policy, not just some attempt to protect ADM and other giant agribusinesses.

It's not worth subjecting the United States to a foreign court to protect soybean sales, is it? I sense there must be more to this.



-Laelth

[B Calm]

40. We need tariffs, not trade deals!

[Enthusiast]

55. Exactly.

The real enemy is not in the Middle East.

[truedelphi]

103. I guess your response means you aren't very willing to kickstart

Obama's TPP !

I imagine that those who are willing to do that are similar to the folks in this video:

‎

[pampango]

107. If tariffs magically produced a strong middle class, FDR would have been for them not against them.

And Europe, known for its strong unions and middle class, would not pursue low tariffs either. Every Democratic president since Woodrow Wilson has pushed for lower tariffs.

Our average tariff has gone from 4.5% in 1950 to 1.5% now. If you think that raising tariffs by 3% will bring back the prosperity of the 1950's and 1960's, you are welcome to your opinion. I think our problems go much deeper than restoring a 4.5% tariff.

What worked in the US under FDR - strong unions, progressive taxes, a viable safety net, effective corporate regulation and low tariffs - still works today to produce a strong middle class. It would work in the US, but to know that for sure we would have to get rid of anti-union legislation, a regressive tax system, inadequate corporate regulation and rebuild a viable safety net.

[B Calm]

108. We didn't need tariffs in the 1930's and 40's. We had a strong union labor movement back then and

people who were working made a livable wage!

Now days workers in America are competing with low wages from all over the world, not so in the 1930's and 40's.

If it cost a manufacturer $1.00 in labor cost to make a product in the USA and to make the same product overseas it only costs them 10 cents, then there should be a ninety cent tariff if they want to sell it here. This would stop the off shoring of American jobs!

[pampango]

113. People were not making a "livable wage" in the 1930's. FDR lowered tariffs because

he thought it would be good for the economy. With progressive taxes and stronger unions those economic benefits were then spread to the middle class.

The 'wage differential' tariff you describe was done by republicans in 1924. The world was not so different back then. Republicans claimed to be protecting us from low-cost foreign producers.

After raising tariffs in 1921, they increased them again in 1924 and, last but not least, in 1930. FDR campaigned against these tariffs and lowered them once he was in office. Here is a description of the 1924 tariff increase bill.

The hearings held by Congress led to the creation of several new tools of protection. The first was the scientific tariff. The purpose of the scientific tariff was to equalize production costs among countries so that no country could undercut the prices charged by American companies. The difference of production costs was calculated by the Tariff Commission.

A second novelty was the American Selling Price. This allowed the president to calculate the duty based on the price of the American price of a good, not the imported good.

The tariff was supported by the Republican party and conservatives and was generally opposed by the Democratic Party and liberal progressives. ... Five years after the passage of the tariff, American trading partners had raised their own tariffs by a significant degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordney–McCumber_Tariff

[B Calm]

115. Everybody loved FDR, but just like Obama, I don't agree with everything he did.

I knew when I posted this that some DUer would bring up FDR. Thom Hartmann and I will just have to disagree with you. The times and circumstances have changed since the FDR era. Working people today need job protection and tariffs is the answer.

[pampango]

118. Indeed we disagree. I think Europe proves that FDR's ideas still work today.

In general Europeans protect their workers by having strong unions, high/progressive taxes, a strong safety net and tighter business regulation. They don't do it with tariffs.

They are following FDR's philosophy today. It worked in the US decades ago when we had progressive taxes, strong unions, etc. Without them no country is going to have a strong middle class or fair distribution of income, whether their tariffs are 0% or 1,000%.

[B Calm]

120. Ronald reagan was a globalist too. I am more

interested in our national interests, instead of viewing the entire world just to make more wealth for a few individuals.

Tariffs: The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale

Once again, it's necessary to debunk the Globalist fairy tales about the "damage" caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Below is a copy of U.S. GDP from 1929 through 1939. These are official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis

(Here is a link to graphic copy of the 1929-39 GDP chart with the key numbers underlined. The Trade Balance has been underlined in Red. Exports have been underlined in Blue. Imports have been underlined in Orange.)



Notice that there is a slight decline in both exports and imports by the end of 1930. The trade balance remained around 0 during the entire time. Exports bottomed in 1932 — 2 years before any revision or modification of Smoot-Hawley occurred.



The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley. Thus, the effects of Smoot-Hawley cover only the period between June 17, 1930, and 1934. This is the time frame that should be focused on.



So in reviewing the chart, what evidence is there that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff "hurt" the economy?? Is there any evidence at all?



No, there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy.



The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.



What happens if we focus on exports alone? Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.0 billion in 1933, for a -$3.9 billion decline. This $3.9 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had already declined by a whopping 46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only 3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports.



But the effects on trade must also include the reduction in Imports, which ADDS to GDP. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the "loss" becomes only -$0.2 billion from our GDP — or less than ½ of 1% of the total GDP decline.



In other words, the document-able "loss" from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff — the "net export" loss — contributed less than ½ of 1% of our our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression.



To put this in better perspective, let's compare all the GDP components together:



1929 .......................................................... 1933
- See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/unlawflcombatnt/blog/2011/03/tariffs-smoot-hawley-fairy-tale#sthash.8JvHN56g.dpuf

[pampango]

122. "... the Smoot Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy" seems to be damning with faint

praise. Making the case for tariffs by asserting they won't hurt the economy much is not very convincing.

Of course, a policy that does not hurt the economy much can be a good thing if, for instance, it redistributes income towards the middle class. As well as Hartmann documented the fact that Smoot-Hawley did little harm to the economy, he did not address the issue of whether it did any good for the middle class. (0Obviously, FDR did not think that it did or,he would have retained them.) Perhaps he did this in another article.

"Ronald reagan was a globalist too. I am more interested in our national interests, instead of viewing the entire world just to make more wealth for a few individuals."

And Herbert Hoover and Calvin Coolidge were anti-globalist, high-tariff, republican presidents. While Coolidge and Hoover differed with Reagan on tariffs, what all 3 of them had in common was that they were great friends of the 1% and all adopted policies that cut taxes, weakened unions and deregulate the corporate world.

Even with high tariffs by 1929 (and 8 years of republican rule), US income inequality was the worst in our history and the middle class had been decimated. The 1% has proven they can amass great wealth in any tariff environment, as long as taxes are low, unions are weak and regulations are nonexistent or ineffective.

I think that being anti-globalist, if it is of the Hoover/Coolidge variety, is not necessarily a good thing. (There are plenty of anti-globalists on the far right in the US and Europe today who are modern "Hoover-stlye" friends of the 1%.)

Conversely being a globalist, if it is of the FDR/European variety, is not necessarily a bad thing. FDR in his day and Europeans in the last few decades have shown that "globalists" can create progressive societies.

[piratefish08]

44. you're stumped? really?

[LWolf]

51. I don't understand why you are stumped.

It seems pretty clear cut to me.

[cantbeserious]

52. Payback For His Corporate Benefactors

eom

[Puzzledtraveller]

54. among other things for me.

[TBF]

56. How is this confusing?

He has sided with the owners on every single issue. We have made gains in civil rights under this president but he does not budge on economic equality. He knows who he really works for.

[Doctor_J]

68. Good synopsis. DADT and gay marriage didn't cost the owning class money

Sinking TPP or KeystoneXL would cost them lots of money. Also ACA compared to SP HC made them a fortune. that's why we have Heritage Care instead of SP.

[Chan790]

58. I don't understand why a lot of seemingly-liberal Democratic Congresspeople support it either.

I've emailed both of my Senators to tell them how bad TPP is and how much I oppose it...only to be told how wrong I am and how it's a boon that is going to create American jobs by the millions, increase wages both here and abroad, open foreign markets to US products and protect US intellectual property from foreign counterfeiting. I've talked to other people with Democratic Senators from across the country and the spectrum of the Democratic Party who have gotten the same response almost point-for-point like the entire Democratic Senate Caucus is working off the same think-tank-supplied talking points.

Senators Mikulski and Cardin are not conservative Democrats by any measure. I expect this from my Congressman, Chris van Hollen...we agree on very little and I feel he only represents the interests of an entrenched insider to DC politics who hasn't listened to what his constituents are saying for years.

Why can't they accept that the will of the American people is that TPP not be ratified? I'm yet to meet any American, from the generally-apolitical and the Tea Party through the mainstream GOP and the mainstream Democratic Party to the progressive left--any American who knows what the TPP is and doesn't want to see it killed.

Not one.

[enlightenment]

61. Where do they get the majority of their

financial support? That might tell you a lot about why they would support - sight unseen - a deal that has to be made in secret and voted on without discussion.

[KoKo]

65. The Supreme Court's decision for "Citizens United" allowed Corporations

to take over funding elections. These Congresscritters don't work for the people anymore even local funding pacs....the work for the Global Corporations.. They are given the funds they used to have to work to get from the people in their states according to how they voted on issues. Now they are on the dole from the Corporations and Wall Street interests. Not all...but the ones that have the most power and influence in House and Senate who head the Committees which do the legislation (written by corporate lawyers) and bring it up for votes on the floor when other members don't even know what they are voting on.

It's all changed with that decision. Not that the Pacs and Lobby Groups for the TransNational/Global giants weren't already all over congress but they were limited in funding. Now there aren't those restrictions.

[orpupilofnature57]

79. +1000 !!!!

[pampango]

66. Obama may be able to get 'fast track' and the TPP itself through the Senate, but

he will never get either through the House. The tea party runs the House through Boehner. They hate things like the TPP - they want the US out of the UN and the WTO.

The House barely approved (by 3 votes, I think) 'fast track' for Bush in 2002 and republicans ran it then, too. They would not give it to Clinton in 1998 because he wanted to include labor and environmental provisions in any agreements he negotiated. Of course republicans would not stand for that then and they are even less likely to give 'fast track' to Obama now.

[TBF]

69. Hell the House will fight just because they hate him.

They are racist idiots. But on some of these issues we can use that to our advantage. I intend to let my rep here in Texas know that people do not want TPP.

[pampango]

71. Part of it is racism and ODS but their base has been skeptical of trade for a long time.

(Of course, their corporate wing is just the opposite.)

[TBF]

85. That actually makes a lot of sense -

I would expect the tea partiers would be more likely to work in or own small businesses.

Whatever it takes to kill TPP. My solidarity is with the rest of the working class & it is going to get very bad in this country if we lose millions more jobs.

[pa28]

74. The house approved Obama's Korea free trade deal w/ 219 R's and 59 d's.

As long as the public remains blissfully unaware I believe he'll get the Republican backing he needs.

Scary.

[tritsofme]

84. The deal that Bush had largely crafted years ago, no surprise they supported it.

The House would never give Obama TPA over environmental and labor regulations.

[truedelphi]

112. A thinking person has to wonder just how many tens of

thousands of dollars Obama will get for presenting Corporate speeches in front of Corporate podiums once he is out of the Oval Office.

Clinton gets some $ 100,000 per speech. Those folks connecting the dots refer to that as his payback for signing the Bank Modernization and Reform Act, that gutted the Glass Steagall Provisions which had protected America's middle class for over 60 years.

It's possible that in return for his helping Wall Street accomplish the heist of middle class wealth and for his support of the MIC/Surveillance State, increasing war, (America is supporting over 80 wars across the globe, while cutting back on social programs) and the Monsanto GM policies, he will get a lot more than $ 100K per speech. (You also have O's support for the nuclear industry, "clean" coal and "clean natural gas," so there will be support for him on those issues also.)

[gulliver]

60. Maybe the reason you don't understand it is...

...you don't understand it. "Too bad to be true" interpretations usually turn out false.

[WinkyDink]

117. Give an example.

[orpupilofnature57]

78. SCOTUS deciding to give corporations the Privilege of Owning

candidates since 2010, coupled with the ultimate insiders list, we're fu-ked .

[lonestarnot]

109. 23 cents an hour is more than is paid either to Salvation Army for Good Will handicapped workers.

[RB TexLa]

110. Oh no! Not the "Precious Merican Sovereignty" card!!!

Yes, Merica can only be answerable to Merica!! We can't be connected to the world only to other Mericans!!!

[WinkyDink]

116. Yes, American workers should lose out to "the world."

[pampango]

119. People in most places know their country is a small part of a big world and

realize theirs is not 'exceptional'. It is 'special' because it is home but one among many.

The US - with 5% of the world's population - often leans towards being apart from the world or, at least, telling the 95% on what conditions we will allow them to be a part of our lives.

[B Calm]

121. I don't think it's exceptional for working people wanting more job protection. Globalists

have been pushing this free trade only because they want cheap labor to exploit and to destroy the middle class in America.

[pampango]

124. Of course not. The question is - do we the real protection of strong unions, progressive taxes and

effective corporate regulation or the illusory protection of high tariffs? Just because tariffs hurt "them" (foreigners) does not necessarily mean that they help "us" (Americans). That is why Democrats have historically been the party of low tariffs.

There are no historical or current examples of countries with strong middle classes based on high tariffs without strong unions, progressive taxes and effective regulation. And if a country has the latter, it does not need high tariffs.

There are plenty of historical and current examples of countries with strong middle classes and low tariffs. That is because the "protection" they provide their workers is "real" in the form of strong unions, high/progressive taxes, effective regulation and a viable safety net.