Clinton and Trade - What's going on?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

First, before I forget again, I saw a comment saying HRC was actually not a NAFTA booster, but lost track of it before responding. So here's a link and a comment from same, courtesy of Barack Obama.

Clinton on NAFTA

"Yesterday, Sen. Clinton also said I'm wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA," Obama said. "But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for president. A couple years after it passed, she said NAFTA was a 'free and fair trade agreement' and that it was 'proving its worth.' And in 2004, she said, 'I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York state and America.' "

(This was a comment made during the 2008 primary.)

Second, another link, this one on Clinton and the TPP.

A Timeline of Hillary Clinton's Evolution on Trade

As President Obama seeks fast-track authority for a 12-country Pacific trade deal and Congress inches toward giving it to him, Clinton is hedging on a deal she once strongly backed.

...

Yet, previously as secretary of state, Clinton called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the "gold standard in trade agreements." In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."

Several times this morning, I've heard MSNBC talking head types say Clinton is 'distancing herself from the TPP'.

Yet we see a history here. When not campaigning, Clinton is firmly pro-free trade, and her proclaimed reasons for being such are virtually identical from deal to deal. But when problems arise with the deals she supports, suddenly there is an effort to proclaim that the problems were other people's fault. With NAFTA (see the timeline article) when it becomes obvious that NAFTA sucked rocks for America, she switched from playing it up to blaming it on the prior administration, and ignoring her prior comments in favour of it at Davos or even in her own books.

So now that it looks like many Democratic voters remember what happened with NAFTA and don't want 'NAFTA on steroids', here we go again, with politically expedient comments to distance herself from a deal she previously lauded as a 'gold standard' before she was campaigning.

So what's the truth? Does she want TPP or not? Does she now have legitimate concerns about it, or is she only worried about losing votes in 2016, and will be happy to support it again as soon as she is safely in the Oval Office?

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. I heard our democratic governer in WA

talking about a good trade agreement is vital to WA due to the amount of jobs in WA associated with trade (1 in 4). And, if a good trade agreement is in place, the increase in merchandise sold will be beneficial.

So, trade agreements, that will give the US the needed playing field in selling products across the globe would be beneficial.

The issue is in the details.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. What are those 1 in 4 jobs?

Shipping coal? Boeing? Microsoft?

Do you think that Bill Gates getting richer will actually create more jobs? Or that a trade agreement will not also 'empower' Boeing's competitors? I highly doubt that the trade agreement is going to lead to a giant jump in demand for 787s.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. He did not go into detail on the radio interview

But I imagine that the sky is the limit in opening markets across the globe for most types of businesses.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

4. The limit is demand.

Demand isn't going to change with the dropping of trade barriers. What will change is the ability of specific companies in different countries to supply that demand. Company A will suddenly be able to cut into Company B's market. So maybe 'jobs will be created' in the country of company A, while jobs will be lost in the country of Company B.

And the companies who can provide most cheaply will be given new advantages. Companies that can provide supply most cheaply are those who have the lowest cost of production, of which labour is typically a large component. So the benefits (and jobs) will go to the member countries in the deal with the cheapest labour. That's not going to be us unless we start making ever lower wages.

[cali]

5. Hard Choices. Ironic, no?

Hillary dances around on the TPP because she doesn't have the gumption to make a hard choice on it. At least publicly. And she's been all over the map on trade. She tailors what she says to the given situation/time.

Absent any position and judging from her history, it's damn fucking safe to say she supports it.

The ultimate corporately connected politician as populist.

It's contemptible and cynical and there are lots of "trust" democrats to play bobblehead.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

6. Some cognitive dissonance there too.

If you honestly believe she has decided it might be a bad idea, how do you support both Clinton and the TPP? If you support Clinton and she's 'backing off' from it, shouldn't you be too?

[hollowdweller]

7. I want to see ALL trade deals killed

Hoping Warren and the country can help it happen.

I think free trade is good in some instances. It's helped a lot of farmers.

I don't think it's always terrible.

However the bottom line is it benefits rich corporations more than US workers.

I think if we start sinking trade agreements it will be a shot across the bow of companies that if they want their trade deals then
they are going to have to start raising US salaries. If they do not give the voters what they want, a bigger share of the pie, then we won't give them the trade deals.