Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders and the truth about the free trade scam

[newthinking]

[font size = 3]Paul Krugman, Bernie Sanders and the truth about the free trade scam[/font]
Trade has been a disaster for Democratic voters, but a boon for Democratic politicians
-- especially the Clintons
Paul Rosenberg
SALON


Bernie Sanders, Paul Krugman, Hillary Clinton (Credit: Reuters/Bob Strong/Brian Snyder/Photo montage by Salon)

In the wake of Bernie Sanders stunning upset victory in the Michigan primary, there’s a renewed recognition that the negative impacts of global trade matter—a lot. There’s still a broad assumption Clinton will easily win the nomination, but there’s been some talk that she might consider Sherrod Brown, Ohio’s staunchly anti-”free trade” senator as her running mate. And of course, as the New York Times dwells on, Clinton is “sharpening” her “message on jobs and trade.”

But Michigan matters not just for Clinton, but for the Democratic Party as a whole. And it’s going to take much more than sharper messaging to actually make a difference in people’s lives. It’s not just a matter of changing policies around the edges—as Clinton now says that she wants to do—the entire corporate-dominated policymaking process that produces such deals needs to be done away with, and replaced with something far more open, democratic and informed by long-term realism. And that can only happen through a mobilization of political will—or as Sanders would call it, “a political revolution.”

Clinton’s messaging shift is a good indication of how far the establishment is from grasping what’s actually needed. As the Times notes, she’s always been upbeat in the past, stressing “inclusiveness,” as the neoliberal lexicon would have it:

“I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful,” she often said.

But now, she’s signaled a change:

Stung by the bad showing, Mrs. Clinton was already recalibrating her message, even altering her standard line before the Michigan race had been called. “I don’t want to be the president for those who are already successful — they don’t need me,” she said at a rally Tuesday night in Cleveland. “I want to be the president for the struggling and the striving.”

It’s a characteristically breathtaking move on Clinton’s part. It sounds great, of course. But how can she be a president for the struggling and striving when she’s so out of touch with them that she’s been blindsided by the brokenness of their dreams? There’s so much more than messaging that needs to be adjusted here. As Paul Krugman now admits, “much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest…. So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam.”

Continued:
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/18/hillary_clinton_doesnt_get_it_paul_krugman_bernie_sanders_and_the_truth_about_the_free_trade_scam/

[Jefferson23]

1. Scam is a nice word for what they've done and continue to peddle. K&R

[Baobab]

13. Neoliberalism is explained quite well in two videos I just posted links to in the videos

and its basically what is being pushed..

These two videos are both really good

and

[SHRED]

2. Trickle-Down, Deregulation, and "Free" Trade

The three heads of the elite's war on the middle-class.


...

[Paka]

8. To the point and nicely put.

[kristopher]

9. I see 'trickle down' as a euphemism for 'feudal economy' nt

[Ferd Berfel]

3. Apparently Krugman HAS made the turn

back into the light.

Welcome back Paul

[MisterP]

4. "disaster for Democratic voters, but a boon for Democratic politicians--especially the Clintons"

ain't THAT the story of the past 20 years! "we're the X candidate--so we can do whatever we want to X and they'll pull the lever twice as hard!"

the GOP learned that under Gingrich, now the Payday Lender Party has caught up

[pnwmom]

5. Not "the Clintons." Robert Reich has written about how Reich himself

was the prime advocate of NAFTA in the Clinton administration, and how he was opposed by Hillary, who wanted the healthcare initiative to be the priority. He won and she lost; and as she had correctly predicted, Bill no longer had the necessary political capital to get healthcare passed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/interviews/reich.html

Well, personally, I was and still am a free trader. I think that free trade is inevitable and overall it helps everyone. But labor was very against NAFTA. And I remember appearing on so many stages in front of various labor groups and being booed off the stage because I was representing the president, and the president was committed to NAFTA. He was committed to NAFTA in the campaign. He said, during the 1992 campaign, "I am going to sign the North American Free Trade Act."

What was your advice to him during the debate though?

My advice to him during the campaign was to sign it.

And then later, once, Kirkland was telling you guys that it was going to be a "f-ing disaster," and you were going to come to regret it. You passed that on to the president. What was his reaction?

He shrugged. He was willing to take on organized labor over the North American Free Trade Act. I think the real issue there was what kind of priority NAFTA should get. Should it be one of the highest priorities of the administration in those first years? Should he spend a lot of political capital on it? Should he delay health care in order to get NAFTA done first? And the first lady wanted health care first. She didn't want him to expend political capital on NAFTA. She was concerned, and in retrospect she was absolutely right, that if health care came after NAFTA, then health care might never get done

[chervilant]

6. Well, durn.

Another turn of the weathervane...

SMDH...

[Duval]

7. Excellent post. K&R

[BeanMusical]

10. Kick and R

[KoKo]

11. Recommend!

[KoKo]

12. duplicate