NYT Op by David Bonier says it well: Obama’s Free-Trade Conundrum

[cali]

WASHINGTON — IN his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Obama focused on reversing the growth of economic inequality in the United States and restoring the American dream. At the same time, he also announced his support for fast track authority that would limit Congress’s role in determining the content of trade agreements.

The president’s call follows on legislation introduced earlier this month to grant him fast-track authority as a way of forcing Congress to speed up its consideration of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation pact with Latin American and Asian nations.

But Mr. Obama’s desire for fast-track authority on the T.P.P. and other agreements clashes with another priority in his speech: reducing income inequality.

<snip>

At Nafta’s core — and proposed for the T.P.P. — are investor rights and privileges that eliminate many of the risks that make firms think twice about moving production to low-wage countries. Today, goods once made here are being produced in Mexico and exported here for sale. Indeed, American manufacturing exports to Mexico and Canada grew at less than half the rate after Nafta than in the years before it.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/opinion/obamas-free-trade-conundrum.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

this is a long piece by Bonior, and well worth reading for the data and his informed opinion.

[jsr]

1. It is a funeral program for the middle class.

[cali]

2. it's dead. Reid killed fast track.

[dsc]

3. do you have a link for that

I think it would be great if he did.

[ProSense]

4. If it's dead, what's the point of the OP?

From Bonior's op-ed:

As a result, our trade deficit has ballooned. In 1993, before Nafta, the United States had a $2.5 billion trade surplus with Mexico and a $29 billion deficit with Canada. In 2012, the combined Nafta trade deficit was $181 billion, even as the share of that deficit made up of oil imports dropped 22 percent. The average annual growth of our trade deficit has been 45 percent higher with Mexico and Canada than with countries that are not party to a Nafta-style pact. The companies that took the most advantage of Nafta — big manufacturers like G.E., Caterpillar and Chrysler — promised they would create more jobs at their American factories if Nafta passed. Instead, they fired American workers and shifted production to Mexico.

<...>

The result is downward pressure on middle-class wages as manufacturing workers are forced to compete with imports made by poorly paid workers abroad. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 saw wage reductions, most losing more than 20 percent.

What no one knows yet is what the TPP will look like or even if it will be approved by Congress. Yes the trade deficit has ballooned and manufacturing jobs were lost. Still, since Obama took office, manufacturing gained jobs for the first time since 1997 and he's also working to address trade deficits.

U.S. Trade Deficit Hits Lowest Level in 4 Years
http://business.time.com/2014/01/07/u-s-trade-deficit-at-lowest-in-4-years/

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm

The structure of the TPP will matter. If it's a horrible as the speculation, it will destroy jobs. If it's not, then it will help the economy. Can you envision a good trade deal?

Dean Baker, who is critical of the TPP, can:

<...>

There are some items on President Obama's agenda that push in the wrong direction, most notably his plans for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This is wrongly billed as a "free-trade" agreement. In reality it has very little to do with free trade.

The TPP is about imposing a regulatory structure that will give corporations more power over the political process. It will make effective health, safety, and environmental regulation more difficult. It may also shield the financial sector from efforts to rein in the sort of abuses that led to the financial crisis. And, it will make drugs more expensive. The TPP is about redistributing income upward; it has no place on a serious inequality agenda.

It is possible to envision a trade agreement that would reduce inequality. If a deal focused on opening the doors to more foreign doctors and other highly paid professionals, it would lead to lower incomes for many in the top one percent and lower cost health care, legal services, and other serviced provided this overpaid group. We could also open the door to low-cost generic drugs, saving tens of billions of dollars annually on prescription medicine.

Trade agreements can also be an avenue for reducing our chronic trade deficit. If we used a deal to negotiate a drop in the value of the dollar against the currencies of our trading partners, it could move us toward balanced trade. If we were to eliminate the trade deficit completely, it would directly create more than 4 million jobs, the bulk of which would be relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs. Adding in the indirect jobs created from these workers' spending, the increase in employment would be over 6 million, getting us most of the way back to full employment.

- more -

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/53892/president-obamas-inequality-story

[cali]

5. uh, I saw this first and then the news about Reid. Great news, eh, pro?

[ProSense]

9. Yup, great news.

I look forward to many threads about the minimum wage, unemployment benefits and other issues that aren't hijacked by: What's the point...TPP.

[Armstead]

8. The basic premise of these "free trade" scams is horrible

[ProSense]

10. Are you

"The basic premise of these 'free trade' scams is horrible"

...saying that you would oppose it if the proposal met the following criteria:

It is possible to envision a trade agreement that would reduce inequality. If a deal focused on opening the doors to more foreign doctors and other highly paid professionals, it would lead to lower incomes for many in the top one percent and lower cost health care, legal services, and other serviced provided this overpaid group. We could also open the door to low-cost generic drugs, saving tens of billions of dollars annually on prescription medicine.

Trade agreements can also be an avenue for reducing our chronic trade deficit. If we used a deal to negotiate a drop in the value of the dollar against the currencies of our trading partners, it could move us toward balanced trade. If we were to eliminate the trade deficit completely, it would directly create more than 4 million jobs, the bulk of which would be relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs. Adding in the indirect jobs created from these workers' spending, the increase in employment would be over 6 million, getting us most of the way back to full employment.

- more -

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dean-baker/53892/president-obamas-inequality-story

Yes or no?

[cali]

11. bwahahaha. yeah. like Obama's cherished TPP fits that discription

and baker has some very harsh word for Obama's little pet trade projects.

Obama has proposed nothing like what Baker describes and YOU know that. As for the corporate pigs he's appointed at USTR, that says quite a bit about our corporate President.

[ProSense]

12. "Obama has proposed nothing like what Baker describes and YOU know that."

Would you support it if he did?

[cali]

14. Yes. Of course. YOU are the one that thinks in binary terms.

[Armstead]

13. I am against these all-encompassing package agreements

Yes it is certainly possible to utilize trade policies to encourage raising standards elsewhere. But that is NOT what these package deals like NAFTA, TPP and Most Favored Nation status for China. They are aboput undermining standards.

My suggested alternative?

Trade policy is actually very specific. It focuses on adjusting the terms of trade between nations regarding things like quotas, tariffs and other considerations related to specific products.

That is what they should focus on. They should NOT dictate national laws and policies and make them subservient to the desires of the Big Money Class.

And they should NOT be package deals where the requirements and conditions are the same for a country like Canada and one like China or an underdeveloped nation.

[Enthusiast]

17. For now.

We must be ever vigilant against any future "trade deals".

[cali]

18. absolutely. they will keep trying. no doubt.

[Autumn]

19. While I think that Reid "killing" it is wonderful, it will rear its ugly head again.

The President wants this, and so do the corporations.

[Armstead]

6. EVERYONE should read this -- Bonier one of the better Democrats in Congress

[cali]

7. it is a very good piece. Harry Reid may have killed the TPA for the moment

but this shit will not just disappear. the fucks will keep trying to expand corporate control with willing pols like President Obama doing their bidding.

[starroute]

15. This is what happens when you play chess instead of caring about people

I think there are strategists within the Democratic Party who have Obama's ear and who believe the recipe for long-term electoral success is to split mainstream business interests -- particularly the Chamber of Commerce -- away from the increasingly loony Republicans and turn them into a pillar of Democratic electoral victories.

There are a lot of nasty correlates to this. Throwing the unions under the bus, for one. Paying lip service to a few leftwing goals, like gay marriage and marijuana legalization, and thinking that will be sufficient to keep the progressives on board, for another. In other words, constructing a pro-business but socially more-or-less liberal party on the grave of what used to be the party of FDR.

There's an alternative, of course. It involves reestablishing the Democratic Party on a basis of economic and environmental justice for everyone. But people who see business money as the key to winning elections can't even begin to imagine that sort of party. And they're prepared to lead us all over the cliff in the name of their flawed vision.

[cali]

16. excellent, thoughtful analysis. thanks.

[marmar]

20. k/r.