The Trade Deal

[Perianne]

What is your view of the trade deal that was opposed by Democrats and was promoted by Republicans? While I profess little knowledge of this issue, I tend to oppose anything Obama wants. This puts me in line with Democrats, a harrowing thought.


Matt Drudge took to Twitter to deliver an ongoing tirade against Republicans’ eagerness to deliver a fast-track trade bill to President Obama’s desk. The bill’s details have not been made public — which hasn’t stopped Republicans from surrendering Congress’s power to make amendments to a president’s future trade deals.


Should a Republican presidential candidate lose the 2016 general election, the Trade Promotion Authority bill could be to blame. Keeping the bill’s details from voters was “clearly treason,” Drudge tweeted.


I liked this comment from "CIMR":


6 out 10 times Johnny [Boehner] votes with the progressives, the dirty little not-secret is that the majority of the GOP is corrupt and available to the highest bidder.

They are faux-conservatives that talk the talk to get elected, then walk down K street to get paid.
The dim's are 100% evil, the GOP is about 65% evil, but the Chamber and the CINO's are fighting 'tooth and nail' to close the gap.




http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/23/matt-drudge-slams-boehner-for-promising-to-pass-obamatrade-clearly-treason/

[Kathianne]

Our thinking on this is near identical.

[Olivia]

I think the deal is still an unknown. That's the problem. Like the ACA he's trying to ram this through in secrecy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The fools are always shocked when the tyrant they make or embrace turns his power against them! They cry out , but we made you, we supported you!
The beast smiles and shouts back, I care not who made me-I care only who will blindly and slavishly obey me!
History is chocked full of examples of this reality yet the fools never learn it, as all too often they are destroyed by the very monster they created and loved..
What we now see in USA is that playing out..

The obama is faith(muslim) and agenda(socialism) driven......WHAT HE IS NOT IS A GENIUS,
those that send him his matching orders likely include a few of those and one may attach the word "evil" to genius in regards to those
" obama handlers".
Obama is a hate filled puppet with his own agenda(destroy America) which ties in quite well with theirs--tis why they chose and groomed the ffing bastard..-Tyr

[Perianne]

I think the deal is still an unknown. That's the problem. Like the ACA he's trying to ram this through in secrecy.

It's good to see you, Olivia!

[fj1200]

... I tend to oppose anything Obama wants.

You should base your opinion on fact and reason and not personality.

To the topic; Free trade is good.

[Kathianne]

You should base your opinion on fact and reason and not personality.

To the topic; Free trade is good.
Free trade is good, unfortunately none of the 'free trade pacts' have been fair to US. The secrecy this one entails, tends to make one think it will be worse than the others.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You should base your opinion on fact and reason and not personality.

To the topic; Free trade is good.

Good for whom...??
Seems that we are being shafted by our two "unelected" and Gobalist appointed trade representatives..
Were this deal great for us there would not be such secrecy...
Same reason the attackers prefers to hold his dagger under his cloak until the moment to strike..
With the obama (as Prez) being in it her opinion of him is important and highly relevant to the subject at hand IMHO.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Free trade is good, unfortunately none of the 'free trade pacts' have been fair to US. The secrecy this one entails, tends to make one think it will be worse than the others.

I disagree but that's not to say that BO can't muck anything up. Every deal is made in secrecy until the time comes to vote. The US has issues no doubt with global competitiveness but it's not because of free trade deals IMO.

[fj1200]

Good for whom...??
Seems that we are being shafted by our two "unelected" and Gobalist appointed trade representatives..
Were this deal great for us there would not be such secrecy...
Same reason the attackers prefers to hold his dagger under his cloak until the moment to strike..
With the obama (as Prez) being in it her opinion of him is important and highly relevant to the subject at hand IMHO.. -Tyr

:facepalm99:

[Kathianne]

I was for NAFTA, simply because I do believe in 'fair trade.' However, even this 'positive outlook' recognizes some of the underlying problems, even with an 'above board' trade deal:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

[fj1200]

I was for NAFTA, simply because I do believe in 'fair trade.' However, even this 'positive outlook' recognizes some of the underlying problems, even with an 'above board' trade deal:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/

There is always change, winners/losers, etc. but overall free trade is good. The US has been resting on its laurels for so long that we've slowly become less and less competitive. Our corporate tax policy in particular is very counterproductive to expanding our export based sector. That's what we need to work on IMO when BO is no longer around.

[Kathianne]

There is always change, winners/losers, etc. but overall free trade is good. The US has been resting on its laurels for so long that we've slowly become less and less competitive. Our corporate tax policy in particular is very counterproductive to expanding our export based sector. That's what we need to work on IMO when BO is no longer around.

I agree with the corporate taxes, though Obama isn't the only problem there, so are the anti-capitalists that voted for him.

[fj1200]

I agree with the corporate taxes, though Obama isn't the only problem there, so are the anti-capitalists that voted for him.

They are always out there. That's why the next R-POTUS candidate needs to educate on conservatism and its benefits.

[Kathianne]

I was for NAFTA, simply because I do believe in 'fair trade.' However, even this 'positive outlook' recognizes some of the underlying problems, even with an 'above board' trade deal:

http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/


There is always change, winners/losers, etc. but overall free trade is good. The US has been resting on its laurels for so long that we've slowly become less and less competitive. Our corporate tax policy in particular is very counterproductive to expanding our export based sector. That's what we need to work on IMO when BO is no longer around.

Reasons for skepticism:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/wikileaks-offers-100-000-bounty-asian-trade-pact-025002514.html


Negotiations on the TPP are close to completion but many trading partners are waiting for approval of fast track, which would stop lawmakers from amending trade deals like the TPP, before making their final offers.Most of Obama's own Democrats oppose the legislation because of fears over the impact of trade deals on jobs, and amid fierce lobbying from unions to vote "no."

Only 18 Democrats have signaled support and dozens of Republicans, opposed to giving the White House more power, are expected to vote "no," leaving the 217-vote threshold needed for passage in doubt.

As part of its education push, USTR released a new report on Tuesday listing tariffs that U.S. exporters face in exporting their goods overseas, compared with the average 1.4 percent foreign companies face exporting to the United States.
U.S. wine faces tariffs of up to 55 percent in TPP countries, fresh vegetables as much as 90 percent and textiles up to 100 percent.

(Reporting by Krista Hughes; Editing by Alan Crosby)

[Kathianne]

Maybe it's me, but doesn't sound like 'free trade.'

[fj1200]

Reasons for skepticism:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/wikileaks-offers-100-000-bounty-asian-trade-pact-025002514.html

Those are tariff levels after the deal or the current situation?


Maybe it's me, but doesn't sound like 'free trade.'

More free than before is better than less free now.

[Gunny]

I think the deal is still an unknown. That's the problem. Like the ACA he's trying to ram this through in secrecy.

Every deal O-blah-blah has made has screwed us. There's probably something behind the scenes he isn't saying.

[Kathianne]

Those are tariff levels after the deal or the current situation?



More free than before is better than less free now.

I read it as it's what the deal sets. Don't see how it's more free. Just don't. Can't be a bit pregnant.

[Gunny]

I read it as it's what the deal sets. Don't see how it's more free. Just don't. Can't be a bit pregnant.

Sorta' pregnant? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[fj1200]

I read it as it's what the deal sets. Don't see how it's more free. Just don't. Can't be a bit pregnant.

The problem is nobody knows what the trade deal sets and why would the USTR be educating on what it will be when it's shrouded in secrecy? That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that's the current scenario and I don't think even BO can screw up a trade deal.


As part of its education push, USTR released a new report on Tuesday listing tariffs that U.S. exporters face in exporting their goods overseas, compared with the average 1.4 percent foreign companies face exporting to the United States.
U.S. wine faces tariffs of up to 55 percent in TPP countries, fresh vegetables as much as 90 percent and textiles up to 100 percent.

Oh yeah, BO sucks.

[Kathianne]

The problem is nobody knows what the trade deal sets and why would the USTR be educating on what it will be when it's shrouded in secrecy? That doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that's the current scenario and I don't think even BO can screw up a trade deal.



Oh yeah, BO sucks.

I do not interject BO into my posts, unless I'm speaking of direct policies or results.

At the beginning of this convo I stated that NAFTA has caused a change of my tendency to outright support trade deals, simply by the results. I doubt that was Obama's doing.

[Gunny]

I do not interject BO into my posts, unless I'm speaking of direct policies or results.

At the beginning of this convo I stated that NAFTA has caused a change of my tendency to outright support trade deals, simply by the results. I doubt that was Obama's doing.

Nope. It was Clinton's.

[fj1200]

I do not interject BO into my posts, unless I'm speaking of direct policies or results.

At the beginning of this convo I stated that NAFTA has caused a change of my tendency to outright support trade deals, simply by the results. I doubt that was Obama's doing.

No you didn't. But he is part of the discussion. :) IMO the results from NAFTA should cause us to lean closer to our trading partners and not further away; to pull away is both contrary to recent history and the advance of globalization and our role as being the most open trading country (of size) in the world. If that causes us to sign a deal that isn't perfect from our perspective so be it but we shouldn't be the enemy of the good for the perfect. I think a big part of what should be negotiated is stronger intellectual property protections. They would be crazy if that's not in there.


Nope. It was Clinton's.

NAFTA was negotiated for the most part under Bush I though Clinton carried it through.

[Kathianne]

No you didn't. But he is part of the discussion. :) IMO the results from NAFTA should cause us to lean closer to our trading partners and not further away; to pull away is both contrary to recent history and the advance of globalization and our role as being the most open trading country (of size) in the world. If that causes us to sign a deal that isn't perfect from our perspective so be it but we shouldn't be the enemy of the good for the perfect. I think a big part of what should be negotiated is stronger intellectual property protections. They would be crazy if that's not in there.



NAFTA was negotiated for the most part under Bush I though Clinton carried it through.

Funny thing, 'free trade' wouldn't need agreements, just actions.

[Gunny]

No you didn't. But he is part of the discussion. :) IMO the results from NAFTA should cause us to lean closer to our trading partners and not further away; to pull away is both contrary to recent history and the advance of globalization and our role as being the most open trading country (of size) in the world. If that causes us to sign a deal that isn't perfect from our perspective so be it but we shouldn't be the enemy of the good for the perfect. I think a big part of what should be negotiated is stronger intellectual property protections. They would be crazy if that's not in there.



NAFTA was negotiated for the most part under Bush I though Clinton carried it through.


Funny thing, 'free trade' wouldn't need agreements, just actions.

She's got a point.

[grannyhawkins]

Nope. It was Clinton's.


Clinton signed it , but it was GHWB, who got the ball rollin!!! That's our famous ex cia daddy, who fur whatever reason was all up in mexico's arse!!! I remember before the savins an loan fiasco, all the expert financial advisors were sayin put yur monies south of the border, then Silverado bit everybody in the back side, courtesy of GHWB an his son neil!!!

A thousand points of light is gonna bite everybody in the backside iffin they don't pay attention!!! Always listen to the "Big Ears", he can hear that suckin sound!!!

[Gunny]

Clinton signed it , but it was GHWB, who got the ball rollin!!! That's our famous ex cia daddy, who fur whatever reason was all up in mexico's arse!!! I remember before the savins an loan fiasco, all the expert financial advisors were sayin put yur monies south of the border, then Silverado bit everybody in the back side, courtesy of GHWB an his son neil!!!

A thousand points of light is gonna bite everybody in the backside iffin they don't pay attention!!! Always listen to the "Big Ears", he can hear that suckin sound!!!

Clinton signed it. It's HIS baby. GHWB didn't impress me much at all, btw. He also signed the Graham-Rudman-Hollings bill. But Clinton ran with it. Decreased manpower and increaed OpTempo. We got our asses worked to death.

And cut out the twang, huh? I come by it naturally but I don't sit around trying to type it.

Or should I say " Ah don't sit aroun' trahing to tahpe it?"

We might sound funny to dumbass yankees (they should listen to themselves:laugh:) but that's no reason to try and spell it.

[grannyhawkins]

Clinton signed it. It's HIS baby. GHWB didn't impress me much at all, btw. He also signed the Graham-Rudman-Hollings bill. But Clinton ran with it. Decreased manpower and increaed OpTempo. We got our asses worked to death.

And cut out the twang, huh? I come by it naturally but I don't sit around trying to type it.

Or should I say " Ah don't sit aroun' trahing to tahpe it?"

We might sound funny to dumbass yankees (they should listen to themselves:laugh:) but that's no reason to try and spell it.

Well, I'm kinda partial to the twang, but with thuh way yew goes about it, it would be an effort. I ben doin it so long now it comes natural like an all I do is jest leeves the "g" offa most words. It all started with the spellin Nazis, it jest drives tham thar rascals crazy an I ain'a bout ta stop fur sum Texas gunny sargant I doan even know!!! :salute: :laugh:

[red states rule]

Like Obamacare they have to pass the bill so we can find out what is in it

and like Obamacare many people will probably lose their jobs

and the left will blame Bush and Republicans

[fj1200]

Funny thing, 'free trade' wouldn't need agreements, just actions.

Well, we could unilaterally open our markets to others but I don't really see that happening. Agreements are how governments work and define roles and responsibilities. Unlikely we'll get any IP protections without an agreement.

[Drummond]

Well, I'm kinda partial to the twang, but with thuh way yew goes about it, it would be an effort. I ben doin it so long now it comes natural like an all I do is jest leeves the "g" offa most words. It all started with the spellin Nazis, it jest drives tham thar rascals crazy an I ain'a bout ta stop fur sum Texas gunny sargant I doan even know!!! :salute: :laugh:

Well, I for one enjoy seeing it ! To each their own. God bless you, Granny ...

[aboutime]

Well, I'm kinda partial to the twang, but with thuh way yew goes about it, it would be an effort. I ben doin it so long now it comes natural like an all I do is jest leeves the "g" offa most words. It all started with the spellin Nazis, it jest drives tham thar rascals crazy an I ain'a bout ta stop fur sum Texas gunny sargant I doan even know!!! :salute: :laugh:

granny. Keep the 'TWANG' thing goin! Those who dislike it should be happy it isn't the old "Pig Latin". If the twang bothers their sense of comprehension...imagine what THAT would do???:laugh:

By now. All of us should always expect somebody to whine, complain, moan, be insulted, or offended with just about EVERYTHING.

[Perianne]

Anyway, back to the story....

We can NEVER trust that lying snake Obama.


If House Republicans get their way, president Obama won't be able to use any trade pact to strike a deal on climate change.

Late Tuesday evening, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin offered up an amendment to a customs bill that would "ensure that trade agreements do not require changes to U.S. law or obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change."


The customs bill is intended to amend so-called "fast-track" trade legislation that could see a House vote as early as this Friday. "Fast-track" would allow Congress an up-or-down vote on any trade deals negotiated by the White House....

Dolan, a spokesman for West Virginia Rep. David McKinley, said that the congressman did not specifically ask for the amendment. But McKinley has previously warned that the president could use "fast-track" to advance a radical environmental agenda.


"If given this "fast-track" authority what could President Obama include in a trade agreement? He could mandate a reduction in the use of natural gas and coal at home and abroad, implement his controversial climate change agenda, and impose radical environmentalist regulations," McKinley wrote in an op-ed in a West Virginia newspaper in February.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/trade-tpp-climate-change-paul-ryan-20150610

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Maybe it's me, but doesn't sound like 'free trade.'

Its not--its a closed system (with limited and favored partners). One that is by no means in this nation's best interests. And thats exactly why the obama is for it.. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Anyway, back to the story....

We can NEVER trust that lying snake Obama.

You're basing your entire opinion on what he "could" do? You do realize that the Republicans could just vote it down don't you?


Its not--its a closed system (with limited and favored partners). One that is by no means in this nation's best interests. And thats exactly why the obama is for it.. -Tyr

Free(r) trade is definitely in our nation's best interests.

[Perianne]

You're basing your entire opinion on what he "could" do? You do realize that the Republicans could just vote it down don't you?

Free(r) trade is definitely in our nation's best interests.

Thank you for telling me what I am basing my opinion on.

[fj1200]

Thank you for telling me what I am basing my opinion on.

I used a question mark. I wasn't telling you anything.

[Perianne]

I used a question mark. I wasn't telling you anything.

Fair enough. My mistake.

[indago]

Journalist Matthew Pennington wrote for The Associated Press 18 June 2015:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislation to smooth the way for a free-trade pact with 11 other Asia-Pacific nations hit a wall in Congress last week. There could be a fresh vote in the House as early as Thursday to try to reverse that setback. Formidable obstacles remain- principally, opposition from Obama's fellow Democrats who believe trade deals cost American jobs. ...While plans were yet to be finalized, officials said the House could have a stand-alone vote on fast track on Thursday. A package of aid for workers who lose their jobs because of imports would become part of a separate bill. The two measures were originally combined into one, to sweeten the deal for union-backed Democrats, who voted against it anyway last Friday.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_ASIA_ANALYSIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-06-18-03-32-15)

The "package of aid for workers who lose their jobs because of imports" is rather dubious anyway, considering how the congress has treated it.


Free trade brings enormous benefits to consumers in the form of lower-cost goods and opens up new markets and new customers to American firms. But it has also become increasingly clear that free trade has exacted a heavy toll on American factory workers, especially during the last decade as more firms shifted their manufacturing to China, Mexico and other low-cost labor destinations.

Congress certainly had this possibility in mind back in 1974, when it established the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program to help provide jobs training and financial support to workers who lost their jobs or had their hours reduced as a result of trade agreements. In 2009, Congress expanded TAA's eligibility and support levels, raising the amount of training available from two years to three, as well as increasing relocation and job search allowances.

Those amendments to the program expired in February, after Republicans in Congress refused to extend them.

article (http://m.startribune.com/topic/1551-Business/articles/207087835)

[indago]

Free(r) trade is definitely in our nation's best interests.

How so?

[red state]

B.O. said that WE Americans can't expect to live comfortably when the rest of the world suffers.

B.O. also said that utilities must NECESARILUY sky-rocket.

B.O. never reverenced our National Anthem or any other function and can't even put down his coffee to properly salute a REAL American.

B.O. is a traitor and to some degree, the last three before him who served as WORLD presidents. I'd lump Carter in there but he came before REAGAN so I'll give him a pass (for now).

The bottom line is not being able to compete with slave labor, EPA bull$#!T and other factors. BOTTOM LINE.

Good to see you back GRANNY! Pleeze set for a spale and don't beez sucha stranger......and NEVER stop with your trade-marked style of writin'.

[fj1200]

How so?


The Truths of Free Trade (http://mercatus.org/publication/benefits-free-trade-addressing-key-myths)Free trade increases prosperity for Americans—and the citizens of all participating nations—by allowing consumers to buy more, better-quality products at lower costs. It drives economic growth, enhanced efficiency, increased innovation, and the greater fairness that accompanies a rules-based system. These benefits increase as overall trade—exports and imports—increases.


Free trade increases access to higher-quality, lower-priced goods. Cheaper imports, particularly from countries such as China and Mexico, have eased inflationary pressure (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030439321000019X) in the United States.1 Prices are held down by more than two percent for every one-percent share in the market by imports from low-income countries like China.



Free trade means more growth. At least half of US imports (http://www.indexmeasures.ca/dc2008/papers/Outsource.pdf) are not consumer goods; they are inputs for US-based producers, according to economists from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Freeing trade reduces imported-input costs, thus reducing businesses’ production costs and promoting economic growth.



Free trade improves efficiency and innovation. Over time, free trade works with other market processes to shift workers and resources to more productive uses, allowing more efficient industries to thrive. The result is higher wages, investment in such things as infrastructure, and a more dynamic economy that continues to create new jobs and opportunities.2



Free trade drives competitiveness. Free trade does require American businesses and workers to adapt to the shifting demands of the worldwide marketplace. But these adjustments are critical to remaining competitive, and competition is what fuels long-term growth.



Free trade promotes fairness. When everyone follows the same rules-based system, there is less opportunity for cronyism, or the ability of participating nations to skew trade advantages toward favored parties. In the absence of such a system, bigger and better-connected industries can more easily acquire unfair advantages, such as tax and regulatory loopholes, which shield them from competition.



Or in short:


The theory of comparative advantage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) is an economic theory about the potential gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.

[indago]

Over time, free trade works with other market processes to shift workers and resources to more productive uses, allowing more efficient industries to thrive. The result is higher wages...

How much time?



Free trade does require American businesses and workers to adapt to the shifting demands of the worldwide marketplace.

You mean, lower our standards, and adapt to this:


http://i57.tinypic.com/2ups7pz.jpg

[indago]

The theory of comparative advantage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) is an economic theory about the potential gains from trade for individuals, firms, or nations that arise from differences in their factor endowments or technological progress.

That might work well within one economic system, but not when dealing with disparate economic systems, as you well know.



Journalist Jane Sasseen wrote for Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine 30 January 2008:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many ordinary Americans have long been suspicious of free trade, seeing it as a destroyer of good-paying jobs. American economists, though, have told a different story. For them, free trade has been the great unmitigated good, the force that drives a country to shed unproductive industries, focus on what it does best, and create new, higher-skilled jobs that offer better pay than those that are lost. This support of free trade by the academic Establishment is a big reason why Presidents, be they Democrat or Republican, have for years pursued a free-trade agenda. The experts they consult have always told them that free trade was the best route to ever higher living standards.

But something momentous is happening inside the church of free trade: Doubts are creeping in. We're not talking wholesale, dramatic repudiation of the theory. Economists are, however, noting that their ideas can't explain the disturbing stagnation in income that much of the middle class is experiencing. ...Yet concern is rising that the gains from free trade may increasingly be going to a small group at the top. ...In an interview with the Financial Times late last year, Hillary Clinton agreed with economist Paul A. Samuelson's argument that traditional notions of comparative advantage may no longer apply.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2008-01-30/economists-rethink-free-trade)

[fj1200]

How much time?

It's an ongoing process. Innovation never stops. The US has been resting on our advantages for decades now and protectionism is not going to fix that.


You mean, lower our standards, and adapt to this:

http://i57.tinypic.com/2ups7pz.jpg

No. Where have I suggested that? We'll never compete on labor costs, for example, which is why we need to focus on where we have advantages.


That might work well within one economic system, but not when dealing with disparate economic systems, as you well know.

I'm not exactly surprised that you found a leftie economist to crap on free trade.


That's not enough, says Slaughter. He sees a need for some form of income redistribution to spread the gains from free trade to more workers. In a controversial article Slaughter co-wrote last summer for Foreign Affairs, he proposed "A New Deal for Globalization" in which payroll taxes for all workers earning below the national median income level would be eliminated. Slaughter has talked with campaign advisers in both parties. So far, he has no takers. But it's one more sign of how far the trade debate has moved.

Besides I don't think the argument holds up to the long-term record of comparative advantage. Nobody ever suggested that there wouldn't be any displacement but disparate economies within a free trade environment can coexist; I don't think the low wages of Mississippi hold down the higher wages of Massachusetts. I'm concerned about the wage stagnation of the "middle class" but as I said earlier to find a leftie ;) economist who will pin all the pain on free trade agreements doesn't really take much looking. They will quickly point away from any tax and regulatory policies that they've advocated that IMO has far more culpability than free trade.

[indago]

It's an ongoing process. Innovation never stops. The US has been resting on our advantages for decades now and protectionism is not going to fix that.

So, you believe that we should break down our environmental regulations, and workplace safety regulations so that we can compete with the foreign markets. Why am I not surprised!




No. Where have I suggested that? We'll never compete on labor costs, for example, which is why we need to focus on where we have advantages.

What trade advantage are you suggesting when the competition has no "environmental regulations, and workplace safety regulations", making their products priced less in the global marketplace?



.

[indago]

I'm not exactly surprised that you found a leftie economist to crap on free trade.


Matthew J. Slaughter, an international economist who served on President George W. Bush's CEA

I didn't find him, he was mentioned in an article written by Journalist Jane Sasseen.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

What they are going for is not about free trade, as much as it is about gaining far more power and control of this nation, its people and its economy!
Effectively by voting in blind laws stripping us of more of our rights and freedoms, stripping our sovereignty away. ! A Damn Fact.
Anybody says differently is either ignorant as hell , gullible as hell or a damn liar IMHO...
GIVES MUCH OF OUR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY TO FOREIGN ENTITIES.
Now why would the LYING bambastard BE WANTING TO DO THAT??--Tyr

[fj1200]

So, you believe that we should break down our environmental regulations, and workplace safety regulations so that we can compete with the foreign markets. Why am I not surprised!

Point out where I proposed such. Be specific.


What trade advantage are you suggesting when the competition has no "environmental regulations, and workplace safety regulations", making their products priced less in the global marketplace?

Their products are already priced lower because they make cheap labor intensive products. We make expensive capital intensive products.


I didn't find him, he was mentioned in an article written by Journalist Jane Sasseen.

And his was the premise of the article. That they found someone against free trade? Not hard.


Effectively by voting in blind laws stripping us of more of our rights and freedoms, stripping our sovereignty away. ! A Damn Fact.

You don't really know what facts are. What "blind law" is being voted in?

[indago]

Point out where I proposed such. Be specific.

You used this in your response:


Free trade does require American businesses and workers to adapt to the shifting demands of the worldwide marketplace. But these adjustments are critical to remaining competitive, and competition is what fuels long-term growth.

We have an advance economic system. We have environmental regulations, workplace regulations, health insurance programs, retirement programs, etc. India and China have polluted their environment, and their economic systems are not the equivalent of ours. To compete, and "require American businesses and workers to adapt" to the conditions of these trading partners would be devastating to our environment.



And his was the premise of the article. That they found someone against free trade? Not hard.

What you quoted was a premise of income redistribution, hardly the premise of the article, which was questioning the viability of "comparative advantage" in disparate economic systems.

[fj1200]

You used this in your response:


Free trade does require American businesses and workers to adapt to the shifting demands of the worldwide marketplace. But these adjustments are critical to remaining competitive, and competition is what fuels long-term growth.

We have an advance economic system. We have environmental regulations, workplace regulations, health insurance programs, retirement programs, etc. India and China have polluted their environment, and their economic systems are not the equivalent of ours. To compete, and "require American businesses and workers to adapt" to the conditions of these trading partners would be devastating to our environment.

Yes, I used that in my response. And none of it equals what you allege that it equals. American business has to adapt to the marketplace, I did not suggest that it requires government dispense with every regulation that we have. Your fallacy is rejected and you may now admit that you were incorrect in your characterization of my words. :)


What you quoted was a premise of income redistribution, hardly the premise of the article, which was questioning the viability of "comparative advantage" in disparate economic systems.

What I quoted was an example of a left wing argument against free trade which was a premise of the article. And FWIW I don't think it really questioned the validity of comparative advantage just that comparative advantage may begin to affect us in ways that it hasn't before. I also reject that we are as disparate as you think; We are far less disparate now than in any time in the past because India, for example, is no longer a Socialist backwater and has made huge advancements in economic freedom, education, etc.

I can state that our government has done an abhorrent job of maximizing our competitiveness globally, counter-productive corporate tax policy, excessive employment regulations that increase our labor costs, an immigration policy that allows excess low-wage labor to hold down wage growth, etc. (note: nothing about the environment) but that is not an indictment of free trade, it's an indictment of poor government policy. We have problems but it's of our own making and will not be fixed by protectionism and I would argue would cause more harm than good.

[indago]

American business has to adapt to the marketplace...

Ah yes, I see...

http://i62.tinypic.com/2u47beg.jpg

China Meat Market

[fj1200]

Ah yes, I see...

China Meat Market

If you don't want to have a reasoned discussion about ideas and issues then you should just say so.

[Perianne]

What is your view of the trade deal that was opposed by Democrats and was promoted by Republicans? While I profess little knowledge of this issue, I tend to oppose anything Obama wants. This puts me in line with Democrats, a harrowing thought.

Peri, you were right to be wary of any deal put forth and promoted by Obama. He does NOT have our best interests in mind:


More than four weeks have passed since the Senate first voted on whether to grant the Executive six years of fast-track authority. In that time, an enormous amount has been discovered about how the President plans to use this authority – information that was either not known or understood when the vote was held. This includes the Administration’s pledge to use the agreement to impose “environmental governance.”


It has become increasingly clear that the President’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is far more than a trade deal. It forms an enduring, self-governing political entity with vast regulatory power. Yet fast-track – which has led without fail to the adoption of every covered agreement since its inception – would rush it through with less legislative scrutiny than a Post Office reform bill.

The President has refused to answer the most simple but crucial questions about how he plans to use fast-track powers. He will not even answer whether he believes his plan will increase or reduce the trade deficit, increase or reduce manufacturing jobs, or increase or reduce wages. Concerns raised about how this new Pacific Union will impact our sovereignty have been met with only a continued unwillingness to reply to any questions about the limits of its reach and power.


The Ways and Means Committee has also now conceded that, as an unprecedented “Living Agreement,” the union could change its structure, rules, regulations and enforcement mechanisms after final ratification – a dangerous and unjustifiable power.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/21/sen-sessions-slow-fast-track-now-before-its-too-late/

I fear we have only begun to see the devastation Obama has in store for us in the last months of his administration.

[Perianne]

More terrible consequences of Obama's trade deal:




One of the treaties being negotiated by President Obama's team is known as the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). The contents were secret until it was obtained by Wikileaks. The documents reveal that the administration hopes to greatly expand access for foreign workers in dozens of occupations including engineering, veterinary medicine, management consulting, construction, waste disposal, hotel and restaurant work, transportation, and recreation. This is not just about computer programmers and nurses; TiSA would facilitate the movement of unlimited numbers of skilled and unskilled workers from participating countries.


As has been the case with past trade agreements, if Congress or even state lawmakers sought to make changes in laws, for example establishing or adjusting licensing, skill, or educational requirements that effectively closed off opportunities for say, Malaysian machinists, Honduran welders, or Mauritanian dentists, that could instigate a trade dispute that would have to be decided by an international tribunal established by the treaty. Historically, the United States has not come out on top in these disputes and can be sanctioned if the laws are not dropped.

Obama, with the assistance of Republican leaders, is giving away our country.


http://www.cis.org/vaughan/vast-ramifications-senate-obamatrade-vote-tuesday

[Perianne]

The more I read of this situation, the worse it gets. This trade deal could fundamentally change America. Remember, it is being pushed heavily by Obama and by its very nature it could not be good for us.

[indago]

The more I read of this situation, the worse it gets. This trade deal could fundamentally change America. Remember, it is being pushed heavily by Obama and by its very nature it could not be good for us.

Yes, DILUTION! GLOBAL COMMUNITY! HOPE & CHANGE! Isn't that what folks voted for?

[Perianne]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-R18A8qIrFXg/VYsekfPULUI/AAAAAAABd5w/o84iVg1Mfr4/s1600/20150624_TPP%255B1%255D.jpg