Free Trade is Here to Stay So Mend it, Don't (Try to) End It

[Scootaloo]

9. Why the scare quotes? Neoliberalism is an actual thing

And is an influential ideology in how American politicians of both parties see the economy and think it should work. We focus on Democrats here because Democrats are the focus of Democratic Underground.

"Presidents attended the signing" is not a particularly compelling argument. So what, how does that translate into why I our anyone else ought to change their mind? It's an argument from authority, and as AfA's go it's a pretty weak one. That so many Democrats and Republicans were so hand-in-hand on the issue actually worries me. But then I don't fetishize "bipartisanship" the way some people do, I guess. Are you aware that in both House and the Senate, Democrats mostly voted against NAFTA? Maybe they share my disdain for goldilocks politics.

Is TPP perfect? No, certainly not. Does it need to be? Well, legislation rarely is. But that's not the qustion at hand. The question is, do we need TPP? Will it be good for most people? The information we currently have strongly leans towards "no" in both instances. As with most "free trade" deals, it is not actually about free trade, so much as it is about free movement of capital between a very few people.

While Smoot–Hawley was a bad law, you don't seem to understand what made it a bad law. You say "something something tarrifs, thus depression" but that's simplistic and, frankly just wrong. First, the legislation wasn't a cause of the depression - it was just something that didn't help the situation. The depression was caused by a number of factors - the de-industrialization of central Europe, wacky bank investment schemes, ecological chaos in the central US, Eastern Europe, India, and China, and political instability in the rest of Europe. All these are lined up well before Smoot-Hawley. As for what made it a bad law, it's two things. One, the tarrifs were set at 60% (which is huge) and second, due to the unilateral enactment of them, our trade partners retaliated with legislation of their own, restricting trade with the US. When Roosevelt took office, he adjusted both problems, lowering tariffs, and negotiating their level with our trade partners.

As for your closing paragraph, it's another poor argument. In this case, it's a double header, you're trying to take down your own straw man with a reductio ad absurdum. it's not that wall street bankers support it that's the problem. Rather the problem arises from why they support it, the contents of the bill itself, and hte effects it will have. As I said, it is another capital liberation scheme.