Posted on 04/06/2008 12:03:51 PM PDT by The_Republican
NYT ADVISES HILLARY AND OBAMA TO TELL "TRUTH" ABOUT TRADE
Mrs. Clinton seems to draw inspiration as well, railing to the Pennsylvania A.F.L.-C.I.O. against alleged dumping of Chinese steel: “When I’m President, China will be a trade partner not a trade master,” she said.
Such pandering may play on the stump, especially in Pennsylvania, where workers fear for their jobs as the country’s manufacturing base shrinks. Still, whoever wins in November would be foolish to choose protectionism. Democrats need to tell voters the truth: First, trade is good for the economy, providing cheap imports and markets for exports, spurring productivity and raising living standards. And second, while trade can drive down some wages and displace some jobs, Democrats have real ideas to help workers cope. Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama should base their approach on these ideas. They would not only make sound policy, they would also provide a competitive advantage over John McCain.
Senators Clinton and Obama know protectionism could have disastrous consequences. Do they really want a trade war with China, the United States’ second-biggest trading partner? Would they want to block a global trade accord designed to help the poorest countries?
Strengthening rules on workers’ rights in Nafta would be a good thing to do, on the merits. But it would do little to help American workers compete with cheaper Mexican labor. If a President Obama or a President Clinton were to fulfill their pledge to renegotiate the deal, he or she would quickly find that Canada and Mexico would want changes, too. Immigration reform would most likely top Mexico’s list. And if push came to shove, would either candidate take the country out of Nafta when about a third of its exports go to Mexico and Canada?
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That is a good one, guess the trade deficit has been fixed, and the depressed wages as well.
In other words, be afraid of China. We rely on them now, not ourselves.
Would they want to block a global trade accord designed to help the poorest countries?
Is that what trade agreements are? More international welfare?
Big deal, some on FR have said. Well, it is a big deal. Just as the U.S. can't drill ANWAR or the Gulf, etc., because of the moonbat vote — Canadian moonbats would love to shut down the Alberta oil sands. Without NAFTA, they could pull that off. That would have as great an impact on world oil supplies as shutting down both Iraq and Kuwait. It would devastate the Canadian economy too — but, that would be just fine by the moonbats.
it is ridiculous to suggest nafta is needed to neutralize moonbats both here and in Canada. Too much is at stake for both countries to let a bunch of loud mouthed ignoramuses call the shots...
What the NYT is talking about is called "trade adjustment assistance." This gimmick pays workers who are displaced by outsourcing and is supposed to cushion the effect. In truth, this is a taxpayer funded welfare scheme designed to placate the laid-off worker and help facilitate big kapital's nefarious profit grubbing.
However, if the U.S. reopens NAFTA, expecting concessions to protect U.S. rust-belt jobs — then everything is on the table.
The usual crowd of Canadian trade unionists, socialists, and “nationalists”, “environmentalists”, and other vested-interest groups strenuously opposed NAFTA then, and they still do. The most contentious part of the package was, and is, Chapter 6 (the Energy Chapter).
When NAFTA was first signed, it was seen as a giveaway of Canadian energy resources. Since then, the oil-sands have come into production, and Canadian oil reserves are several times larger (maybe 10 times the size of Saudi Arabia's, by some estimates). Chapter 6 was the main reason that the U.S. wanted NAFTA & it is now worth far more to the U.S. (Or more precisely — the reason that the Reagen government wanted the Canada-U.S. FTA, which had a similar energy chapter.)
If NAFTA is reopened, and concessions demanded for the rust-belt — then it won't just be the moonbats here demanding that Chapter 6 be withdrawn. Our minority Conservative government wouldn't be able to just let things stand. In fact, we wouldn't have another Conservative government here for several generations if the “energy card” weren't played.
BTW, the manufacturing sector in Canada is suffering at least as much as it is in the U.S. Changing NAFTA will do nothing to solve any problems in the manufacturing sector in Canada or the U.S.
One of the reasons for NAFTA was to create a regional trading bloc to rival the EU. Without NAFTA, the U.S. (and Canada) will have an even harder time finding customers for its manufactured goods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.