Home | About | Donate

Don’t Believe What You Read: People Really Do Care about Free Trade


#1

Don’t Believe What You Read: People Really Do Care about Free Trade

Roger Bybee

President Barack Obama is apparently dead set on a last-minute passage of the twelve-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership that would enhance th


#2

We absolutely care about free trade and they know it. Unlike Clinton and NAFTA the TPP Obama has been pushing is well publicized and seriously despised.
I have signed probably 50 petitions against it and made numerous calls to my local reps promising that if anyone votes for it they will never get my vote again. This treasonous piece of garbage should never see the light of day nor should any elected official that would vote for it.
Call your Reps call the White House. Make sure they know you do care and are completely against it.


#3

I have been emailing and calling my reps. (all Democrats) since the 2012 election admonishing them to vote against TPP. They respond with their stock "trade is good" mantra, and all rubber stamped Obama's fast track legislation.

They know that if we vote them out there is a K Street lobbying job with their name on it that pays at least 10 times their current Congressional salary.

Its win-win for them and lose-lose for the 99%.

"The ferocity of the public's opposition" has already manifested in Sanders' and Trump's numbers in the primaries, Mr. Bybee.


#5

A lot of good points made here but, unfortunately, like most articles on the subject, the article shies away from mentioning the obvious need for meaningful tariffs and, instead, substitutes the false talking point of "improved labor standards" as if that would help at all. At least it didn't use that other false talking point of worker retraining and/or compensation.

Most low wage countries could triple their minimum wages, shorten work hours and have optimum safety standards and it would still be more profitable for multinationals to produce what they sell here in those low wage countries as long as they can import that production into our country virtually tariff free.


#6

There is probably no real way to create reasonable labor situations when workers are in one locale and companies are international. In such circumstance, it is altogether too easy to hire one half of the working class to kill the other.

More regulation will be great, but it is not likely to happen before people outside of international business get control of government.

I think we have to quit buying international product.


#7

I told my rep in the House I would not be voting for him unless he stated he was anti-TPP and pledged to vote that way when it comes up. Still waiting to hear that from him. He appears to be playing it cagey, but at this point there will be a blank spot on my ballot in his slot.


#8

Still waiting for Obama to be asked to defend specitic provisions in the TPP. All I hear from him is general platitudes. I'm not holding my breath, because he cannot defend them.


#9

Hear hear!


#10

Good for them. Let them enjoy their K Street jobs. Vote 'em out.


#11

Today the biggest threat to our economic wellbeing in that of protectionism. Candidates from both major parties are flirting or outright embracing protectionism.
Protectionism is the progressivism of fools. Gandhi was a great statesman but a horrible economist. Just as the ignorant in the USA argue that American workers who earn $15 per hour should not have to compete with Chinese workers who make $2 per hour, Gandhi thought that Indian workers should not have to compete with American and European workers who have the benefit of modern machines. As a result India adopted protectionism. In 1947 the per capita income of India was similar to countries such a South Korea. By 1977 the per capita income and standard of living in South Korea was may times that of India. India has since largely abandoned protectionism and has benefited immensely from free trade. Just as David Ricardo proved would be the case when he developed the concept of comparative advantage.

Protectionism can save jobs. In the USA the best measurement of the cost per job saved to the rest of the country is about $1 million per job saved. Saving one job might provide $100,000 in gains to the worker and the employer who benefit from the protectionism, but cost the rest of the country $1,000,000. Since the million dollars is just one third of one cent per person in the USA, no one notices it.

To save a million jobs via protectionism would cost the country a S1 trillion which would be about the same impact as a very severe recession. To save 10 million jobs via protectionism would cost the country a S10 trillion. That would make the USA a poorer country than Mexico. That would mean it would be likely the people born in the USA would be going to Mexico to work as servants and dishwashers. The degree of impoverishment that would result from that much protectionism is usually only associated with severe natural disasters or wars.

I would think that in any deliberation about raising interest rates before the election, some Federal Reserve officials might mention that if they were to precipitate a wave of protectionism either via a massive strengthening of the U.S. dollar or sharp downturn in the economy resulting from their rate increase, they would only be remembered in history for that act. Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley probably did many things in their careers, but history only remembers them for the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 which remains today as the prime example of the damage that protectionism can do...."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4002770


#12

Protectionism is the progressivism of fools. Gandhi was a great statesman but a horrible economist. Just as the ignorant in the USA argue that American workers who earn $15 per hour should not have to compete with Chinese workers who make $2 per hour, Gandhi thought that Indian workers should not have to compete with American and European workers who have the benefit of modern machines. As a result India adopted protectionism. In 1947 the per capita income of India was similar to countries such a South Korea. By 1977 the per capita income and standard of living in South Korea was may times that of India. India has since largely abandoned protectionism and has benefited immensely from free trade. Just as David Ricardo proved would be the case when he developed the concept of comparative advantage..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4002770-dividend-yield-20_5-percent-makes-cefl-still-attractive


#13

TPP, TTIP and TISA are regulatory capture disguised as trade deals. While 6 of the 30 TPP chapters address trade, the other 24 enable regulatory capture, making the protectionism claim bogus.

Corporations, the media and politicians they own continue to directly and through trolls frame TPP as a trade deal rather than the regulatory capture enabler that it actually is.

TPP povides protectionism that protects corporations from having to comply with laws enacted by sovereign nations. Anybody who promotes the protectionism argument who is not a politician dumbing down the issue to win an election and/or funded by corporations, or a paid troll needs to read Andrea Germanos' 9/30/16 CD article quantifying some of the damage TPP and TTIP will inflict on the US.


#14

Economic history does not support the idea that protectionism ruins economies. From its inception until 1913 when income tax was instituted, the revenues of the US Federal government were mostly import taxes or tariffs which varied from 90% to 40% of total revenues. During that time the tariffs averaged over 30%. Smoot Hawley set tariff at less than 20%. Even Milton Friedman said that Smoot-Hawley had little or no effect on the depths or length of the Great Depression. IMHO the cacophony that Smoot-Hawley caused the Great Depression was to divert attention from Wall Street and place it on Government. Blatant propaganda!! Even the timing is wrong. The Great Depression started in October 1929. The Smoot-Hawley Act was signed into law by Hoover June 1930 and was replaced by FDR in 1934 so it was only in place for just under 4 years yet the Great Depression lasted until 1941. Before you regurgitate Wall Street and corporate propaganda you should check your facts and refer to reputable sources.


#15

Really?? Did you get this canned talk from the Washington Post?