I'm not sure you are right that bad trade deals haven't decimated middle class jobs. Of course it's not the only reason. But business has been allowed to go to the cheapest labor sources. Please explain why that is good for the American worker? This idea of "cheap" consumer goods is bogus and I'd suggest you actually do know this. So I'm the end we will have driven out wages down to third world levels because of positions like that espoused in this editorial. Not everyone can be a fancy editorial page editor.
31
Trade didn't send the good jobs overseas. We did by scrambling to find the ever cheaper goods at any cost. And we're paying that price today.
13
If we cut off trade with other countries and put tariff,s on goods the price of things would go up. I really do not think the average American would like that.
6
I'm really surprised, since you seem to be actively setting the stage for Clinton's inevitable reversal on the TPP, you didn't mention that other favorite canard, the 'education gap'. Workers lack the skills, we are told, but what they really lack is the willingness to work for H-1B wages, and who pushes incessantly for increases to the H-1B program under the TPP? Among many others, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple. The chutzpah is stunning, on their part and yours.
44
In Europe the main objection comes from the secret arbitration courts and the corporate ability to sue against regulations in other countries. The whole idea is sickening, and to find out politicians negotiated such garbage is disheartening. TTIP (the pendant to TPP) is a monster.
27
The United States has been the Largest Beneficiary of International Trade Agreements. NAFTA, the Most-Maligned Trade Agreement within the US, has Clearly benefitted Americans in the US far more than Mexico or Canada. American Manufacturing Jobs were lost but the Huge population of American Consumers enjoyed much higher Value-for-Dollar from lower cost Imports. Clearly Vast numbers of New Jobs were created in the Service & Retail Sectors. One estimate states NAFTA created 23 million New Jobs in the US. The Real Issue is 'Americans who lost Manufacturing Jobs were left to Fend for themselves'. The Real Solution is Retraining of the Workforce in the Skillsets needed in the New Jobs created by Trade Agreements. Clearly Govt has a Leading Role in Ensuring No Hand is Left Behind in Retraining & ReSkilling the obsolete Workforce to Seamlessly move into better-paying New Careers.
12
"While trade is not the cause of all or even much of the wage stagnation or increased income inequality in the past several decades, "
Actually yes it is.
NAFTA enabled Big Agriculture to sell corn to Mexico below rates Mexican farmers could compete with and as a result, they ended up jobless and many, many of them left and came to the US, illegally. Illegal aliens have most definitely lowered or kept wages lower than normal for many years as they have taken jobs previously done by Americans.
So when the elites, globalists, open borders and free trade fanatics, like the Editorial Board of the NYT tell you that trade is good, it's the theoretical type they mean. The real world free trade agreements are written by lobbyists for multinational corporations that no longer have American interests as number #1 priority. And our ruling class agrees completely with this prioritizing.
Is there any real question why the average citizen is not impressed, nor believes the propaganda anymore? And why rational people DON"T believe that "his (DT's) talking points are nothing more than hot air" anymore than free trade has benefitted them when they see the opposite evidence around them and for America.
What is also missing is that Bernie was also against this type of "free trade" although, the NYT Editorial Board want's that fact buried so they can attack DT. No one is fooled.
Actually yes it is.
NAFTA enabled Big Agriculture to sell corn to Mexico below rates Mexican farmers could compete with and as a result, they ended up jobless and many, many of them left and came to the US, illegally. Illegal aliens have most definitely lowered or kept wages lower than normal for many years as they have taken jobs previously done by Americans.
So when the elites, globalists, open borders and free trade fanatics, like the Editorial Board of the NYT tell you that trade is good, it's the theoretical type they mean. The real world free trade agreements are written by lobbyists for multinational corporations that no longer have American interests as number #1 priority. And our ruling class agrees completely with this prioritizing.
Is there any real question why the average citizen is not impressed, nor believes the propaganda anymore? And why rational people DON"T believe that "his (DT's) talking points are nothing more than hot air" anymore than free trade has benefitted them when they see the opposite evidence around them and for America.
What is also missing is that Bernie was also against this type of "free trade" although, the NYT Editorial Board want's that fact buried so they can attack DT. No one is fooled.
42
Voters act as if CEO's will allow profits to go to the working class without trade deals. Without trade deals, products will be expensive AND workers will not have good incomes.
8
Republicans blame free trade? Gee, who adopted that stance in American politics? Seemed to take a sadistic pride in using it to bust unions and tilt towards cheap labor? Conservative Saint Ronald Reagan!
35
The editorial board is being disingenuous in writing this opinion. The NAFTA and GATT2 types of deals are loaded to benefit the international corporations that control the means of production and who capture most of the profits and benefits, able to treat people as disposable widgets. The editorial board needs to remember we need FAIR trade, not FREE trade.
The looming Pacific trade treaty is especially suspect because of the super-secrecy surrounding it while it has been open to hundreds of corporations to participate. From the leaks about the treaty it would enable corporate-controlled tribunals that would be a serious threat to our own laws and sovereignty -- something Congress used to worry about. If this Pacific treaty stands on its own merits, then why can't we examine it instead of holding it secret, ready to be put on a no-debate fast track process?
The looming Pacific trade treaty is especially suspect because of the super-secrecy surrounding it while it has been open to hundreds of corporations to participate. From the leaks about the treaty it would enable corporate-controlled tribunals that would be a serious threat to our own laws and sovereignty -- something Congress used to worry about. If this Pacific treaty stands on its own merits, then why can't we examine it instead of holding it secret, ready to be put on a no-debate fast track process?
59
Well a lot of obsfucation here. If they were trade deals that's one thing but they are not. You know it and it's disengenuous for you to write about jobs when these trade deals are about the movement of capital and the rights of multi national conglomerates to pillage. See dispute resolution tribunals. It would have been interesting for the paper of record to acknowledge the truth.
39
Bernie and Trump, attributing damages done by various factors, opportunistically to international trade, may now stall TPP.
4
Computers and robots are replacing people. It should be a good,thing. Do you really want your sons and daughters working in a coal mine? The problem is this economic system gives the windfall of these benefits to the few.
33
This is not convincing. Automation, which has historically put laborers out of work, is surely part of it, but it still seems that cheap labor overseas, uh, trumps that.
44
How much purchasing power do robots have?
37
As you indicate, trade is not the full picture.
IT jobs and call center jobs moved offshore should not be disregarded.
Most of our software development companies have moved a significant number of jobs overseas.
Those jobs do not pay taxes here and are not counted as part of "trade".
We are training foreigners and surrendering our technology advantage just so these companies save a few bucks.
IT jobs and call center jobs moved offshore should not be disregarded.
Most of our software development companies have moved a significant number of jobs overseas.
Those jobs do not pay taxes here and are not counted as part of "trade".
We are training foreigners and surrendering our technology advantage just so these companies save a few bucks.
53
Were you in Central Europe in 1990?
Have you been back?
If you had and if you do, you will see a clear example of how Trade has benefited all and how it has made amplified the world market
It is Trade that creates jobs no that destroys it. What is needed is for a recent age of the benefits derived be directed towards those displayed in the form of training, new technologies and incentive innovation
This that talk about outsourcing for American Companies have a regional mentality that overlooks and completely ignores the reality of the world. The US is not an island, not to buy or market something because it lacks a redeeming intangible panacea as PAW suggest is not only ridiculous but infantile
Have you been back?
If you had and if you do, you will see a clear example of how Trade has benefited all and how it has made amplified the world market
It is Trade that creates jobs no that destroys it. What is needed is for a recent age of the benefits derived be directed towards those displayed in the form of training, new technologies and incentive innovation
This that talk about outsourcing for American Companies have a regional mentality that overlooks and completely ignores the reality of the world. The US is not an island, not to buy or market something because it lacks a redeeming intangible panacea as PAW suggest is not only ridiculous but infantile
10
"Trade" is not the problem. 'Unfair trade' that hurts those who do not make decisions about trade and benefits only those who do is the problem.
9
Simple. Tax the rich, tax the CEOs and board members and all shareholders, tax the corporations, tax all Republican'ts and those who vote for and assist them out of existence. No more tax evasion or inversions either. All are unAmerican and unpatriotic anyway. China, India, Mexico, Philippines need us we don't need them, for anything. Slave labor and tax evasion. This country is so vast with lots of talent that their is no reason whatsoever that we can't do it all ourselves. Common sense.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts and their ilk so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
5
Times: "She [Clinton] also wants other countries to agree not to depress the value of their currencies in an effort to boost their exports and says her administration would crack down on nations that engaged in such manipulation."
Trump has said essentially the same thing, so the Times is slyly giving Clinton an endorsement by omitting that fact.
Trump: "We are going to enforce all trade violations against any country that cheats. This includes stopping China’s outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation."
Transcript: Donald Trump at the G.O.P. Convention
JULY 22, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/trump-transcript-rnc-addre...
Trump has said essentially the same thing, so the Times is slyly giving Clinton an endorsement by omitting that fact.
Trump: "We are going to enforce all trade violations against any country that cheats. This includes stopping China’s outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal product dumping, and their devastating currency manipulation."
Transcript: Donald Trump at the G.O.P. Convention
JULY 22, 2016
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/trump-transcript-rnc-addre...
9
When we tax investors at lower rates than workers then these people who benefit the most from free trade are not paying their fair share. Whenever some billionaire goes on teevee and discusses the economy, he or she should put their tax rate on the screen. If you pay a lower rate than average worker then you are part of the problem.
Romney lost when it became apparent his rate was 13%. That is the heart of the first thing that needs to be fixed. I don't want to tax them at FDR rates but they should pay what I pay...they should pay at least 25% and anything less is unconscionable.
Romney lost when it became apparent his rate was 13%. That is the heart of the first thing that needs to be fixed. I don't want to tax them at FDR rates but they should pay what I pay...they should pay at least 25% and anything less is unconscionable.
10
"Apple can sell more of their products overseas..." You have it backwards. Apple makes and warehouses all its products over seas, and sells them here. It's not just factory workers who have lost jobs, but also American tech workers.
Companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook,and Disney to name a few benefit from trade deals which allow them to export products while at the same time, import low cost tech workers with visas that allow them to take American's jobs.
Both Democrat and Republican politicos favor these deals. That includes the Hillary and Donald show.
Only Bernie told the truth!
Companies like Microsoft, Google, Facebook,and Disney to name a few benefit from trade deals which allow them to export products while at the same time, import low cost tech workers with visas that allow them to take American's jobs.
Both Democrat and Republican politicos favor these deals. That includes the Hillary and Donald show.
Only Bernie told the truth!
21
It seems that the Times is expressing what Times columnist Paul Krugman calls, "In fact, the elite case for ever-freer trade." Krugman states that the elite case "is largely a scam." And the American people know it.
If Times editors read their own opinion page, they would understand that, as Krugman tells us, "agreements that lead to more trade neither create nor destroy jobs...and that they can easily produce losers as well as winners..The winners could compensate the losers, so that everyone gains. In practice, especially given the scorched-earth obstructionism of the G.O.P., that’s not going to happen."
So instead of mouthing the "elite case" for free trade, perhaps the Times should listen to Americans hurt by these trade deals, Americans who are losing their jobs as corporations destroy their
If Times editors read their own opinion page, they would understand that, as Krugman tells us, "agreements that lead to more trade neither create nor destroy jobs...and that they can easily produce losers as well as winners..The winners could compensate the losers, so that everyone gains. In practice, especially given the scorched-earth obstructionism of the G.O.P., that’s not going to happen."
So instead of mouthing the "elite case" for free trade, perhaps the Times should listen to Americans hurt by these trade deals, Americans who are losing their jobs as corporations destroy their
12
The TPP would delay generic (i.e., cheaper) versions of drugs. How is that free trade? And why should opposition to it be considered "rage"?
18
The editorial board says, "Trade isn't the main force destroying good jobs, but at the moment, it serves as an easy target for an electorate anxious about the economy and looking for answers."
OK, then what is the main force destroying good jobs? What can be done about it? What will bring good jobs back?
OK, then what is the main force destroying good jobs? What can be done about it? What will bring good jobs back?
13
The attitude about trade in this country , the disrespect for other nations in terms of agreements and tariffs, made trade a terrible negotiations. America wants to have the privilege, obviously the big corporations destroyed so many small business , like small farmers all over the old, forget about other industries. The regulation is the key idea of the trade.
1
More regulation of labor wages and conditions overseas will increase costs of products to working people in our country so... Automation has cost us much more jobs than trade ever will..
2
I just booked a trip, hotel and rent a car. I didn't talk to a travel agent, didn't talk to an employee of a hotel and didn't speak to an employee of the rental car company. I wasted 30 minutes of my own time working for all 3 companies for free while buying their product. I drive a car where every weld was done by a robot. I checked out of the Supermarket through a self serve checkout yesterday.
The robotic welder, American Airlines, Hertz, Hilton and Safeway didn't have to pay a salary, benefits or give me time off to take care of a sick parent or a new baby.
Lets blame all those customers in India, China and the rest of the emerging world for our loss of jobs. I suspect in a very few years, NY Times editorials will be written by AI instead of a human being. Should a robotic welder get the same salary as IBM's Watson?
The robotic welder, American Airlines, Hertz, Hilton and Safeway didn't have to pay a salary, benefits or give me time off to take care of a sick parent or a new baby.
Lets blame all those customers in India, China and the rest of the emerging world for our loss of jobs. I suspect in a very few years, NY Times editorials will be written by AI instead of a human being. Should a robotic welder get the same salary as IBM's Watson?
17
As usual, your editorial misses the point and barely addresses the nuances of trade deals! Many comments by subscribers are right on about differences between free trade and fair trade and how other countries manage to negotiate trade deals that benefit their societies. I recommend you read them and educate yourself before the writing another editorial on this subject.
24
Too many people miss the point of the rage against trade agreements. The point is this -- Cheap underpants from Viet Nam or Bangladesh don't make up for 15 years without a pay increase.
41
Can we really continue to import most of our consumer products while we export only advice to other nations? Or Disney characters? Or economists?
13
The Times' editors are not economists. Trade policy is a hot debate. Most economists support the current agreements, but there are also strong critiques
Science changes. The Times editors are not the specialists who can mediate this debate. The Times should do a better job of presenting the debate, instead of taking one side.
Most defenders of the agreements misrepresent the criticisms and the critics. That’s how hot the debate is.
There are good ideas in the third comment of the day by Richard Luettgen, and a reply, although I usually disagree with most of the positons in his Times’ comments.
Science changes. The Times editors are not the specialists who can mediate this debate. The Times should do a better job of presenting the debate, instead of taking one side.
Most defenders of the agreements misrepresent the criticisms and the critics. That’s how hot the debate is.
There are good ideas in the third comment of the day by Richard Luettgen, and a reply, although I usually disagree with most of the positons in his Times’ comments.
14
This is a disingenuous column that sets up opposition to "trade" as a straw man.
Yes, of course it's not "trade" that's redistributed wealth to elites, it's the deals billed as "free trade" treaties that in fact pit low-wage and middle-income workers in developed countries against desperately poor people in third world countries. The result is to give capital a decided advantage over labor, which elites have exploited in order to concentrate wealth in their off-shore tax-free bank accounts.
This is the New York Times, not Fox News, and we are NYTimes readers, not Fox viewers. Don't insult our intelligence with this kind of tripe.
Yes, of course it's not "trade" that's redistributed wealth to elites, it's the deals billed as "free trade" treaties that in fact pit low-wage and middle-income workers in developed countries against desperately poor people in third world countries. The result is to give capital a decided advantage over labor, which elites have exploited in order to concentrate wealth in their off-shore tax-free bank accounts.
This is the New York Times, not Fox News, and we are NYTimes readers, not Fox viewers. Don't insult our intelligence with this kind of tripe.
61
There is nothing wrong with trade, but un-restrained trade is bad but very few people want to talk about it. It's very simple, the Democrats can say all they want about 5% un-employment rate, bull market blah-blah, but those numbers don't correspond to what people feel, their lives not better than their parents and un-stable. Some corner always boast how the U.S. can made changes quickly but they don't tell you at the cost of social stability. How do you raise a family if you are not stable. It's great for employers, but not everybody can be employers. No politician on either party want to talk about the truth.
19
Anti-trade sentiment has no substantive economic basis and is essentially little more than an expression of jingoistic nationalism and political nostalgia stirred up by populist demagogues like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. That Hillary Clinton has recently tended to parrot their views shows that she is probably more of an opportunistic follower than a true leader or educator of public opinion.
3
I can vouch as as a 25 year veteran selling door to door factory to factory in my state, that 90% of factories I sold to have gone overseas since NAFTA. I speak from real experience and visual fact not economics.
11
All of the trade agreements benefit American businesses and that is why they should pay corporate taxes on foreign profits. The jobs we lose are their financial gain. The rights they have, the safe waters and air they travel upon are secured by these agreements, the US military and NATO.
We have a revenue problem and it begins with the 1% not paying their fair share or even anything close to the percentage the average worker pays.
We have to have parity
We have a revenue problem and it begins with the 1% not paying their fair share or even anything close to the percentage the average worker pays.
We have to have parity
7
Come on now, take the next step. Recognize that it is impossible Not to integrate the economies of low-wage third-world countries with ours.
Billions of low-wage workers in countries that used to be communist or socialist are now in the same labor pool as high-wage American workers. So American wages must go down.
History and technology have produced this change and, no matter what American leaders do, it is not going away,
Billions of low-wage workers in countries that used to be communist or socialist are now in the same labor pool as high-wage American workers. So American wages must go down.
History and technology have produced this change and, no matter what American leaders do, it is not going away,
4
Trade is measured, decisively, in dollars and euros. LOST in the imbalances are what the jobs really MEAN to our country: Lost is the sense of self-worth of the once-laborers in American factories. Lost is the self-esteem of those who once could say "I build compressors for Carrier". Job by job, small mfg. company at a time, we have traded that employment off and overseas. Yes we can measure the $ benefits to American consumers in lowcost products from abroad. NO, we can't appreciate the loss of self-esteem our working forces have suffered. We get to learn the extent of that loss when the bluecollar working forces march and trumpet Trump.
5
"Trade" is not the issue. The issue is agreements like NAFTA and the TPP that vastly increase power of mega-corporations and take opportunities from everyone else.
Former NYT food columnist Mark Bittman said it well: "The TPP is little more than enhanced corporation power branded as free trade. It gives corporations the right to challenge government regulations and seek compensation if they think they’ve been treated unfairly by any of the 12 Pacific Rim nations in the deal." (APRIL 22, 2015)
Mr. Bittman goes on to say, "The pact would threaten local food, diminish labeling laws, likely keep environmentally destructive industrial meat production high (despite the fact that as a nation we’re eating less meat) and probably maintain high yields of commodity crops while causing price cuts."
The proposed TPP, even worse than NAFTA, allows corporations to sue governments in secret tribunals if regulations e.g. for environmental protection diminish a corporation's profits.
In NAFTA's case, the Canadian corporation Methanex in 1999 sued the U.S. government for $970 million because of a California executive order phasing out the sale of an environmental toxin, MTBE, because the California environmental policy limited the corporation's ability to sell MTBE. (http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01april/corp1.html )
It's about corporate power, not about trade.
Former NYT food columnist Mark Bittman said it well: "The TPP is little more than enhanced corporation power branded as free trade. It gives corporations the right to challenge government regulations and seek compensation if they think they’ve been treated unfairly by any of the 12 Pacific Rim nations in the deal." (APRIL 22, 2015)
Mr. Bittman goes on to say, "The pact would threaten local food, diminish labeling laws, likely keep environmentally destructive industrial meat production high (despite the fact that as a nation we’re eating less meat) and probably maintain high yields of commodity crops while causing price cuts."
The proposed TPP, even worse than NAFTA, allows corporations to sue governments in secret tribunals if regulations e.g. for environmental protection diminish a corporation's profits.
In NAFTA's case, the Canadian corporation Methanex in 1999 sued the U.S. government for $970 million because of a California executive order phasing out the sale of an environmental toxin, MTBE, because the California environmental policy limited the corporation's ability to sell MTBE. (http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01april/corp1.html )
It's about corporate power, not about trade.
16
I like how you capitalized 'she' in your ninth paragraph. I hope that She Who Must Be Obeyed will be our next President.
More to the point, I don't know the structure of our negotiating team for one of these trade agreements. Is anyone present who does not enjoy an income of $200,000? Whose boss came from and will return to a major interested corporation? Is there any reason to be astonished when the agreement favors the One Percent?
I can't imagine a duller story than one detailing the structure of the Team, but it would be important. Run one and I promise to grit my teeth and read it.
More to the point, I don't know the structure of our negotiating team for one of these trade agreements. Is anyone present who does not enjoy an income of $200,000? Whose boss came from and will return to a major interested corporation? Is there any reason to be astonished when the agreement favors the One Percent?
I can't imagine a duller story than one detailing the structure of the Team, but it would be important. Run one and I promise to grit my teeth and read it.
6
"The Rage Against Trade: Trade isn’t the main force destroying good jobs, but it sure is a handy scapegoat"?
Read (or listen to on NPR) economist Jeffrey Sachs's great analysis of the "backlash" against "free trade", please, Times!
His main points:
1) It doesn't do any good to someone whose job has been permanently eliminated if some goods are cheaper! No job + no prospects = anger. And where's all the "job retraining" people were promised as part of the "global economy"? Without that, economic dislocation and anger won't evaporate,
2) A small group of corporations and .001%er individuals have been the main beneficiaries of "free trade" -- really akin to extreme, no regulations law-of-jungle "economics," in many cases -- while many people (rightly) perceive themselves as losers! There needs to be some sort of income / windfall profits leveling of the gross inequality "globalization" and "free trade" has caused.
The people and the top -- politicians and media -- can't just keep fobbing people off with the "things are better" faux-Panglossism... unless we want to see more (and even more extreme) Trumps!
Read (or listen to on NPR) economist Jeffrey Sachs's great analysis of the "backlash" against "free trade", please, Times!
His main points:
1) It doesn't do any good to someone whose job has been permanently eliminated if some goods are cheaper! No job + no prospects = anger. And where's all the "job retraining" people were promised as part of the "global economy"? Without that, economic dislocation and anger won't evaporate,
2) A small group of corporations and .001%er individuals have been the main beneficiaries of "free trade" -- really akin to extreme, no regulations law-of-jungle "economics," in many cases -- while many people (rightly) perceive themselves as losers! There needs to be some sort of income / windfall profits leveling of the gross inequality "globalization" and "free trade" has caused.
The people and the top -- politicians and media -- can't just keep fobbing people off with the "things are better" faux-Panglossism... unless we want to see more (and even more extreme) Trumps!
11
In the name of "free trade," US companies outsourced manufacturing to the cheapest source. Those jobs are gone for good and no one has any idea what might replace them. Low-wage service jobs are where the growth in employment is, not what we used to call "middle-class" jobs that could support families, buy homes and send kids to college.
5
Trade agreements are designed to benefit the bottom line, that's why the rich get richer. Trade agreements are not designed to benefit workers.
I bought a shirt made in Bangladesh. The next week, I read in the Times that a supervisor is accused of killing a 9 year old textile worker in Bangladesh, a nine year old textile worker.
I guess if this country is to compete in a global economy, it's time the kids went back to work.
I bought a shirt made in Bangladesh. The next week, I read in the Times that a supervisor is accused of killing a 9 year old textile worker in Bangladesh, a nine year old textile worker.
I guess if this country is to compete in a global economy, it's time the kids went back to work.
7
When we talk of 'winners and losers' the underlying sub-text is 'corporations and shareholders' are the winners and 'the working class' are the losers. The 1% have done brilliantly and the 99% less so.
When you combine this with other trends such as: runaway CEO remuneration vs general workforce wage stagnation; sweetheart tax deals for corporations; corporate off-shoring of profits and spiraling healthcare and education costs, it's no wonder that lower and middle class voters feel shafted.
For the average worker 'free trade' feels like a race to the bottom.
When you combine this with other trends such as: runaway CEO remuneration vs general workforce wage stagnation; sweetheart tax deals for corporations; corporate off-shoring of profits and spiraling healthcare and education costs, it's no wonder that lower and middle class voters feel shafted.
For the average worker 'free trade' feels like a race to the bottom.
9
By "trade" do you mean "trade with countries where forced labor is common, manufacturers are allowed to pollute indiscriminately and thug governments forbid unions and a free press, thereby perpetuating low wages and global warming?" Because that's what "trade" with some countries actually means.
9
Eight of the first eight comments are critical of the basic assumptions that inform this editorial. These are intelligent, well-read, thoughtful people, not racist, know-nothing conspiracy hounds.
And yet, once again, the "elite" and relatively wealthy leadership-class authors exhibit a strange, almost dream-like lack of understanding. And can't resist the temptation to talk down at the commoners, who seem to have a much more realistic grasp of the subject matter.
What gives?
And yet, once again, the "elite" and relatively wealthy leadership-class authors exhibit a strange, almost dream-like lack of understanding. And can't resist the temptation to talk down at the commoners, who seem to have a much more realistic grasp of the subject matter.
What gives?
9
Most thinking Americans are not against trade, they are against unfair trade. Just as they are against unfair taxes and any other societal rules that create an unbalanced playing field. Taxation without representation is an old American battle cry that is just as valid today as it was 240 years ago.
The moneyed interests better be careful with the little games they are playing that lower American living standards while raising their own.
Vote in November.
The moneyed interests better be careful with the little games they are playing that lower American living standards while raising their own.
Vote in November.
10
If the TPP Agreement is so terrific why was it shrouded in secrecy by President Obama? Yes, trade is good but not when the agreements are written by the corporations for the corporations and too many American workers get screwed, blued and tattooed.
9
Every single manufacturing job in Asia (and around the world) that is making products for sale in the US is taking jobs from Americans. Fact. You can argue that cheaper consumer goods are worth throwing our fellow American citizens under the bus for, but nobody moves jobs out of the USA because it's cheaper to automate or run robots overseas.
8
Free trade is not the problem. Fair sharing of the gains is one problem. Tax structure is another. Monopolistic corporate control of economics and politics is at the heart of the problems.
10
Trade itself is not the problem. It is how trade is done. Just like everything else in this country, it is done to benefit the few at the top while throwing everyone else under the bus.
When we get back to having a government that works for the benefit of the many instead of just doing the bidding for the rich, we will be a representative democracy again.
When we get back to having a government that works for the benefit of the many instead of just doing the bidding for the rich, we will be a representative democracy again.
11
Of, course consumers benefit from cheaper goods. To the point they have no income to purchase them.
Competition is good and largely healthy. We drive cars now for years thanks to the Japanese. And our labor now competes with Japanese labor. But the Japanese don't live in squalor.
Our cheap shoes has our labor competing with those that live on a small fraction of what or labor's standard of living is. They can't compete with that. And the long time it will take for the standards of living to rise in those competing lands is causing horrible consequences here.
Add 14 million low skill illegal aliens and MAGIC! you destroy a country's middle class. Trump is their revolt, I wish them luck!
Competition is good and largely healthy. We drive cars now for years thanks to the Japanese. And our labor now competes with Japanese labor. But the Japanese don't live in squalor.
Our cheap shoes has our labor competing with those that live on a small fraction of what or labor's standard of living is. They can't compete with that. And the long time it will take for the standards of living to rise in those competing lands is causing horrible consequences here.
Add 14 million low skill illegal aliens and MAGIC! you destroy a country's middle class. Trump is their revolt, I wish them luck!
9
It is not trade per se that enrages the middle class.
Perhaps an editorial entitled " The Rage Against How Trade Agreements are Negotiated" would be more appropriate. The ways and means of trade negotiation instigates visceral antagonism due to its secrecy. Ignoring stakeholders, shortchanging the environment, not protecting labor rights: these and other omissions are what enrage constituents against trade pacts.
A United Nations official recently opined that trade agreements violate international law. The feature of the TPP known as asymmetrical conflict resolution seems designed to neuter sovereign will for the benefit of corporate profit. Conflating trade and murky "trade-offs" should be an easily avoided category mistake.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/u-n-s-legal-expert-calls-proposed...
Perhaps an editorial entitled " The Rage Against How Trade Agreements are Negotiated" would be more appropriate. The ways and means of trade negotiation instigates visceral antagonism due to its secrecy. Ignoring stakeholders, shortchanging the environment, not protecting labor rights: these and other omissions are what enrage constituents against trade pacts.
A United Nations official recently opined that trade agreements violate international law. The feature of the TPP known as asymmetrical conflict resolution seems designed to neuter sovereign will for the benefit of corporate profit. Conflating trade and murky "trade-offs" should be an easily avoided category mistake.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/06/u-n-s-legal-expert-calls-proposed...
8
Saying trade agreements are bad is like saying GMOs are bad-- you don't actually know unless you know specifically what's in them. I'm surprised that so many well informed people, who know the depths of corporate greed, blame trade rather than the simple fact that those jobs weren't going to stay here, agreement or no. That's where we should focus our ire, and our solutions.
I wonder how many people who drive a Prius (made possible by trade agreement) or even purchase Macs, or anything else manufactured abroad, are lamenting the very agreements that make their toys so readily available.
I wonder how many people who drive a Prius (made possible by trade agreement) or even purchase Macs, or anything else manufactured abroad, are lamenting the very agreements that make their toys so readily available.
I have always thought it ironic that Trump was so outspoken about trade. Isn't most of the stuff he sells: ties, suits, shirts made in foreign countries. He says he doesnt even know where his products are made, even the Make America Great Hats. What a hypocrite. But yes we need to look into making them fairer for us, but for that to happen, we need to penalize American companies that make their products out of country.
2
It is easy for those whose living is earned in the lucrative trade of punditry to blithely pronounce that hostility to trade is misdirected. You're not down here in the trenches watching most other means of making a living disappear ... from H1B visa-allowed engineers and scientists being imported to customer-service and tech support jobs going to any country that pays less than our minimum wage to the obvious factory jobs farmed out to slave-wage countries. Not all of us were born with the connections to be CEOs, politicians, or lofty "thinkers" paid for their pronouncements.
5
What's hurting the jobs situation is spending trillions of dollars and getting nothing in return for them.
The government, city, state AND federal, have become very good at the wealth transfer game which does nothing to create jobs or to encourage the maintenance of jobs.
On the grand scale, this give-away of the nation's wealth is what brought the Soviet Union and their eastern European allies to their knees.
The current reliance on the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever it is that they are calling it these days to evade having to admit that their wealth transfer schemes assure that GDP and real wealth remain flat or decline has been a disaster...means nothing more than the Soviet Union's collapse in slow motion.
The government, city, state AND federal, have become very good at the wealth transfer game which does nothing to create jobs or to encourage the maintenance of jobs.
On the grand scale, this give-away of the nation's wealth is what brought the Soviet Union and their eastern European allies to their knees.
The current reliance on the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever it is that they are calling it these days to evade having to admit that their wealth transfer schemes assure that GDP and real wealth remain flat or decline has been a disaster...means nothing more than the Soviet Union's collapse in slow motion.
1
Obviously a complicated and hot button issue , I find it depressing though that even my fellow liberals rarely bring up the fact that on a world wide basis the major trade deals have played a significant role in lifting workers out of unbelievably abject poverty and somewhat improved their working conditions
2
Proponents of trade deals, from President Obama to the NYT editors and columnists, never mention or attempt to defend the ISDS provisions of these deals, which treat regulations that safeguard the planet and the public interest as potential violations of corporations' "right" to maximize profits. Why would anyone who cares about clean air and water, worker protections, and a pure food supply support such warped priorities? And what about the ways in which these deals limit access to life-saving drugs? The president and his supporters on this issue owe the country an explanation. What, exactly, are they thinking?
4
This PR piece from the Editorial Board fails to mention the abuse of Free Trade which the same NY Times have covered in the past. The American Worker does not have a voice in those Trade Agreements. Our government keeps issuing H1B visas to Foreign Workers to replace American workers but at the same time it prevents the free flow of cheaper pharmaceutical drugs from Canada. Our government is very selective in enforcing Free Trade which is primarily for the benefit of the Corporations not the Workers.
It is not irrational to feel rage when we realize your government is selling us down the river. As Brexit as shown Democracy can triumph over Capitalism. This election cycle is also showing we continue to dismiss the abuse of Free Trade and the legitimate concern of the electorate at our own perils.
It is not irrational to feel rage when we realize your government is selling us down the river. As Brexit as shown Democracy can triumph over Capitalism. This election cycle is also showing we continue to dismiss the abuse of Free Trade and the legitimate concern of the electorate at our own perils.
5
i would trade cheaper goods and richer rich people for a return of some decent middle-class jobs. I know that automation is the cause of losing many jobs but that doesn't mean we have to lose all of the remaining ones to China.
I grew up in northwest Indiana. At the time there were 100,000 steelworkers there, people with often only a high school education yet who could own houses and send their kids to college. I'd gladly pay more for consumer goods if it would mean that more good jobs like those could exist in the US again.
I don't know if this would require some protectionism but, even if that's so, it's not unthinkable to me.
I grew up in northwest Indiana. At the time there were 100,000 steelworkers there, people with often only a high school education yet who could own houses and send their kids to college. I'd gladly pay more for consumer goods if it would mean that more good jobs like those could exist in the US again.
I don't know if this would require some protectionism but, even if that's so, it's not unthinkable to me.
7
If industry and government cannot ensure a fairer distribution from the gains of trade, then how can we expect them to handle the coming acceleration in job loss due to robots, automation and artificial intelligence? If you think the next wave of technology will create as many or more new jobs than it destroys, as has happened in the past... well, you may be right, or you may not. We could be on the cusp of a new paradigm, with AI as a game changer. And even if more new jobs are created, are industry and government prepared this time to help people transition or are we going to face another, perhaps deeper and more painful round of devastation to individuals and communities? Will capital continue to receive more favorable treatment than labor in our economic policies?
And yes, I say INDUSTRY and government. No more of the philosophy that industry is not in any way accountable for anything but profits for shareholders.
And yes, I say INDUSTRY and government. No more of the philosophy that industry is not in any way accountable for anything but profits for shareholders.
4
Thank you for this. It seems when people talk about trade issues, they leave their brains at the front door. Among the benefits of free trade not mentioned in this article is the positive effect it has on politics: no more mysterious deals favoring one industry.
Like much of the intelligentsia you have chosen to read only the first half of the text on international trade: "The Gains From Trade." You have ignored the second half: "Factor Price Equalization." That second half has always described how wages, for example, will tend to become more equal among freely trading countries. That principal has worked perfectly over the years. Chinese workers are doing better; American workers are doing worse. Totally free trade among countries that are more alike to begin with is likely to benefit (almost) all unambiguously. Unfettered trade among extremely differing countries gives us the result that almost everyone in this country, but you, has come to regard as unfortunate for the common good.
5
Just wondering what planet the Editorial Board lives because I believe that we've lost half a million auto-related jobs from manufacturing windows and tires to assembly of engines and the finished product as well.
Speaks to the Board's lack of diversity and very narrow viewpoint of men and women that have never done manual labor or factory work.
Speaks to the Board's lack of diversity and very narrow viewpoint of men and women that have never done manual labor or factory work.
10
Trade has entered a feedback loop, that is destroying social fabric and civic responsibilty and only rewards the 'apex predators.'
As we see in the Peacock, the males grow enormous tail feathers that hinders escaping predators and survival because peahens rear chicks that grow or prefer ever-longer tails until the species collapses, no longer able to escape the claws of cats.
Can we overcome this feedback loop before the 'speakers and amplifier' blowup? Or will the 'Devil take the Hindmost' and little is left but the cats?
As we see in the Peacock, the males grow enormous tail feathers that hinders escaping predators and survival because peahens rear chicks that grow or prefer ever-longer tails until the species collapses, no longer able to escape the claws of cats.
Can we overcome this feedback loop before the 'speakers and amplifier' blowup? Or will the 'Devil take the Hindmost' and little is left but the cats?
4
Trade is not to blame. Unequal trading agreements where one party benefits at the expense of the other most certainly is. The TPP is an example of that as is our agreements with China and NAFTA. These agreements should be torn up and those in this country who approved them need to be ashamed of themselves.
5
Unlimited trade is good for consumers....but consumers do not exist as a class separate from the rest of us. In order to have money to spend these people must have jobs. Saying that trade is good for consumers but bad for workers is nonsensical: undercutting well paying work destroys the whole system. To whom will Apple sell its products if no one has secure employment?
5
This Editorial fundamentally fails to distinguish between trade and trade agreements. Nobody in their right mind wants to end trade. Trade brings in all kinds of popular foreign goods. But bad trade agreements are a whole different thing -- they can give away the farm. As far as I know, the attacks on our trade relationships have all been about trade agreements not trade.
4
Well regulated and mutually agreeable pacts or not the problem with international trade of goods and services. The real problem is "Wall Street", big Corporations wish to always increase their bottom line for bigger and better profitability at the cost of their employees.
2
Are you kidding NYT? Over the last 35 years, we have lost millions and millions of jobs through trade.
Working in the textile industry for the last 25 years, I have witnessed up close 1.5 million manufacturing jobs disappear in just the textile & apparel industries alone.
Our $600 billon annual trade deficit reflects the value of goods and services that we import rather than produce here at home. But it's even worse than that, since we tend to import labor-intensive goods, like shoes, and export capital-inteisve goods, like software, the actual magnitude of our colossal job losses is actually much higher.
True, while giant trade deficits do reduce the cost of manufactured items throughout our economy and do help finance our government debt, our trade - which for us is buying more than we're selling - results in heavy job losses. To think anything else is merely a misguided fashion.
PS: Why do you think China has become so prosperous? For them, it's the opposite; trade means exporting more than they import, a trade surplus, which has led to unprecedented job growth.
Working in the textile industry for the last 25 years, I have witnessed up close 1.5 million manufacturing jobs disappear in just the textile & apparel industries alone.
Our $600 billon annual trade deficit reflects the value of goods and services that we import rather than produce here at home. But it's even worse than that, since we tend to import labor-intensive goods, like shoes, and export capital-inteisve goods, like software, the actual magnitude of our colossal job losses is actually much higher.
True, while giant trade deficits do reduce the cost of manufactured items throughout our economy and do help finance our government debt, our trade - which for us is buying more than we're selling - results in heavy job losses. To think anything else is merely a misguided fashion.
PS: Why do you think China has become so prosperous? For them, it's the opposite; trade means exporting more than they import, a trade surplus, which has led to unprecedented job growth.
8
The issue is not that people see trade as a problem it is “trade agreements” like NAFTA and TPP. Trade agreements are the cause of our problems.
“Consumers benefit from cheaper clothes, electronics and other goods…” The only “benefit” is that the under employed can afford to buy the much cheaper clothing from the same company they used to work for who closed up and moved to profiteer instead of being a good citizen making profits while employing and contributing to the US as a nation.
Trade or “free trade” the reagan political invention to excuse the deregulation that allowed business to stop being socially responsible and making sound decisions to maintain stability and long term viability that simultaneously unleashed the concept of “maximization of profits” as if it weren’t the degenerate thing that it is caused the problems we have now as many said it would at the time. The main reason for regulation & taxation that insisted/forced good management and planning was to prevent such destructive practices. It is “maximization” that has lead to purchasing profitable companies whose paid for equipment was worth more than the purchasing price then tank it and take the Pension and H&W funds under pretense of saving the company and finally close it and sell it all off to Asia. “Vulture Capitalist” is the term for the “americans” who did this. Once you see that you must also see that it is not trade but trade agreements are “bad” after all.
“Consumers benefit from cheaper clothes, electronics and other goods…” The only “benefit” is that the under employed can afford to buy the much cheaper clothing from the same company they used to work for who closed up and moved to profiteer instead of being a good citizen making profits while employing and contributing to the US as a nation.
Trade or “free trade” the reagan political invention to excuse the deregulation that allowed business to stop being socially responsible and making sound decisions to maintain stability and long term viability that simultaneously unleashed the concept of “maximization of profits” as if it weren’t the degenerate thing that it is caused the problems we have now as many said it would at the time. The main reason for regulation & taxation that insisted/forced good management and planning was to prevent such destructive practices. It is “maximization” that has lead to purchasing profitable companies whose paid for equipment was worth more than the purchasing price then tank it and take the Pension and H&W funds under pretense of saving the company and finally close it and sell it all off to Asia. “Vulture Capitalist” is the term for the “americans” who did this. Once you see that you must also see that it is not trade but trade agreements are “bad” after all.
3
About time, but better late than never. There's plenty of room for argument about what's a good trade deal or a bad one, but there can be no gainsaying the fact the American is a nation largely dependent on foreign trade for its economic robustness.
We started out that way. Our Revolution was largely about trade. With our abundance of natural resources we were positioned to become a major mercantile power from the get-go, but Britain insisted that - by and large - we trade only with her. "Liberty" meant many things, but chief among them was the liberty to trade where it served our interests, not just those of the old country. The subsequent War of 1812 was likewise a war fought mostly over trade practices, as was the Tripolitan War. Confederate belief in ultimate victory in our Civil War was based largely on the concept of "Cotton Is King", a vain hope that Britain would join the war because of pressure from its sagging textile industry.
We were born a trading nation and remain a major player, but we're in no position to dictate trade agreements. Our trade partners have their own interests in mind, and consequently all trade agreements are loaded with negotiated compromises. Some of those may be hard to swallow, but we can't always have everything our way. To suggest otherwise - as Trump does - is nothing but political smoke.
(Incidentally, since Nafta went into effect some 20 years ago, our trade with Mexico has increased by over 600%.)
We started out that way. Our Revolution was largely about trade. With our abundance of natural resources we were positioned to become a major mercantile power from the get-go, but Britain insisted that - by and large - we trade only with her. "Liberty" meant many things, but chief among them was the liberty to trade where it served our interests, not just those of the old country. The subsequent War of 1812 was likewise a war fought mostly over trade practices, as was the Tripolitan War. Confederate belief in ultimate victory in our Civil War was based largely on the concept of "Cotton Is King", a vain hope that Britain would join the war because of pressure from its sagging textile industry.
We were born a trading nation and remain a major player, but we're in no position to dictate trade agreements. Our trade partners have their own interests in mind, and consequently all trade agreements are loaded with negotiated compromises. Some of those may be hard to swallow, but we can't always have everything our way. To suggest otherwise - as Trump does - is nothing but political smoke.
(Incidentally, since Nafta went into effect some 20 years ago, our trade with Mexico has increased by over 600%.)
2
To say SOME manufacturing jobs had been lost is a gross understatement; and to omit the fact these were also skilled high paying jobs is quite irresponsible of NYT. Ridiculously, helping American companies sell more to other countries, like Apple, does not help us either if they move their manufacturing (American jobs) out of country as well as also keeping their money offshore to avoid paying American taxes. So either way, American peoole are suckered.
The fact of the matter is, until workers and productions world wide COST the same as here in the United States, business owners will take manufacturing where it's cheaper and profits higher. We forget, in the hype of "free enterprise," the prime and only objective of businesses are to make profit, for themselves. The fact that they provide jobs are incidental, not essential to their existence. That is why they have no compunction morally to destitute a whole town, or the whole country, when moving out of the country or importing cheaper skilled workers are more profitable, for them.
While we want American businesses to be successful, because they are American, us; but also because their success could be the back bone of our economy and our country, that is if they stay put and don't hide their money in Cayman Island like criminals do.
The American progressives need to take fight global. Globalization has benefited the Capital class much more than workers because it's simply much much easier for capital to move.
The fact of the matter is, until workers and productions world wide COST the same as here in the United States, business owners will take manufacturing where it's cheaper and profits higher. We forget, in the hype of "free enterprise," the prime and only objective of businesses are to make profit, for themselves. The fact that they provide jobs are incidental, not essential to their existence. That is why they have no compunction morally to destitute a whole town, or the whole country, when moving out of the country or importing cheaper skilled workers are more profitable, for them.
While we want American businesses to be successful, because they are American, us; but also because their success could be the back bone of our economy and our country, that is if they stay put and don't hide their money in Cayman Island like criminals do.
The American progressives need to take fight global. Globalization has benefited the Capital class much more than workers because it's simply much much easier for capital to move.
3
Trade is a very complex issue. But I compare globalization to climate change: like it or not, it's a fact and the question is how you deal with it.
You have to start with an ethical premise: many countries in Asia, like Korea, Singapore, and now China, were desperately poor compared to Western developed countries (many of which had developed based on brutal colonization). Trade allowed these countries to develop middle classes, and some, democracies.
Unfortunately, the rich in developed countries benefit the most, and manufacturing workers are harmed. Professionals like doctors and lawyers benefit from the protectionism of visa restrictions. This unequal dynamic should be addressed.
The main problem with the TPP is the intellectual property protections, notably drug patents, which drive medical costs. This could be addressed by allowing Medicare to negotiate collectively for drug prices and lower patent lifetimes. Piracy is rampant in Asia (think Marvel movies) but the drug patents need to be an exception. You can thank Citizens United for allowing big pharma to run these negotiations.
It's possible that a country like Vietnam (one which we arguably destroyed) will benefit greatly from the TPP. That would be a good thing.
We don't have a trade problem; we have corporations exploiting trade loopholes that they write. Gashing trade bills won't get corporate influence out of our politics - that's the root cause of the problem of inequality.
You have to start with an ethical premise: many countries in Asia, like Korea, Singapore, and now China, were desperately poor compared to Western developed countries (many of which had developed based on brutal colonization). Trade allowed these countries to develop middle classes, and some, democracies.
Unfortunately, the rich in developed countries benefit the most, and manufacturing workers are harmed. Professionals like doctors and lawyers benefit from the protectionism of visa restrictions. This unequal dynamic should be addressed.
The main problem with the TPP is the intellectual property protections, notably drug patents, which drive medical costs. This could be addressed by allowing Medicare to negotiate collectively for drug prices and lower patent lifetimes. Piracy is rampant in Asia (think Marvel movies) but the drug patents need to be an exception. You can thank Citizens United for allowing big pharma to run these negotiations.
It's possible that a country like Vietnam (one which we arguably destroyed) will benefit greatly from the TPP. That would be a good thing.
We don't have a trade problem; we have corporations exploiting trade loopholes that they write. Gashing trade bills won't get corporate influence out of our politics - that's the root cause of the problem of inequality.
5
The Editorial Board of the New York Times needs to read Economics Journals.
American Economic Review 201, 103(6) 2121-2168
“We analyze the effect of rising Chinese import competition between 1990 and 2007 on US labor force markets, exploiting cross-market variation in import exposure stemming from initial difference in industry specialization and instrumenting for US imports using changes in Chinese imports by other high-income countries.
Rising imports cause higher unemployment, lower labor face participation and reduced wages in local labor markets that host import competing structuring industries.
In our main specification, import competition explains one-quarter of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in US manufacturing employment. Transfer benefits payments for unemployment, disability , retirement and healthcar also rise sharply in more trade-exposed labor markets”
David H. Autor David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson
American Economic Review 201, 103(6) 2121-2168
“We analyze the effect of rising Chinese import competition between 1990 and 2007 on US labor force markets, exploiting cross-market variation in import exposure stemming from initial difference in industry specialization and instrumenting for US imports using changes in Chinese imports by other high-income countries.
Rising imports cause higher unemployment, lower labor face participation and reduced wages in local labor markets that host import competing structuring industries.
In our main specification, import competition explains one-quarter of the contemporaneous aggregate decline in US manufacturing employment. Transfer benefits payments for unemployment, disability , retirement and healthcar also rise sharply in more trade-exposed labor markets”
David H. Autor David Dorn and Gordon H. Hanson
5
"Trade isn’t the main force destroying good jobs, but at the moment, it serves as an easy target for an electorate anxious about the economy and looking for answers."
This assertion, and it is an assertion unsupported by authoritative references, has been disputed.
Estimates I have seen hold that about one fourth to one third of wage stagnation in the U.S. over the past several decades can be attributed to technological innovation. But offshoring, the sustained downward pressure on wages, the radical decline in private sector union jobs, overfinancialization of the economy, corporate governance changes that reward short term gains and top executives at the expense of everyone else, and radical income inequality are bigger factors. According to Joseph Stiglitz, white men in full time jobs make less in inflation adjusted dollars than they did 42 years ago.
Except for Trump, our political leadership, including Bernie Sanders, understands that trade is indeed a good thing as a general rule. But, as Stiglitz points out, the problem, an enormous one, is not so much trade agreements per se, also good as a general rule, but how these agreements, going all the way back to NAFTA, have been managed to benefit banks, corporations and assorted plutocrats. They have also lifted millions in the third world, but at the expense of over 90% of the U.S. population.
The Times also fails to mention Investor State Dispute Resolution.
It would do well to paint a more complete picture.
This assertion, and it is an assertion unsupported by authoritative references, has been disputed.
Estimates I have seen hold that about one fourth to one third of wage stagnation in the U.S. over the past several decades can be attributed to technological innovation. But offshoring, the sustained downward pressure on wages, the radical decline in private sector union jobs, overfinancialization of the economy, corporate governance changes that reward short term gains and top executives at the expense of everyone else, and radical income inequality are bigger factors. According to Joseph Stiglitz, white men in full time jobs make less in inflation adjusted dollars than they did 42 years ago.
Except for Trump, our political leadership, including Bernie Sanders, understands that trade is indeed a good thing as a general rule. But, as Stiglitz points out, the problem, an enormous one, is not so much trade agreements per se, also good as a general rule, but how these agreements, going all the way back to NAFTA, have been managed to benefit banks, corporations and assorted plutocrats. They have also lifted millions in the third world, but at the expense of over 90% of the U.S. population.
The Times also fails to mention Investor State Dispute Resolution.
It would do well to paint a more complete picture.
4
>>>
Obama and the rest of the free traders, both GOP and Dems, talk a good game of political smoke and mirror ramblings as to the benefits of it, but they never have any numbers or empirical evidence to back it up. If in fact they have some facts, they are awful quiet about it. Break out these facts and let's see if they can survive Descartesian doubt. If they can then great, if not sit down.
The only thing I've ever heard mentioned are statistics that show world poverty in down due to free trade. Although something tells me that does not the fly with the American worker or voter.
If the current "Free Trade" policies are so good for the US, prove it via analysis and facts not slight of hand language. Defeat the skeptics with this analysis.
Note: Our current Free Trade paradigm is not trading products but labor. When a Chinese national invents, designs, produces and ships his computer to US markets, that is free trade as Adam Smith saw it. As opposed to when Whirlpool closes down its US factories, and moves to Mexico and then ships its products back into the more lucrative US market, which is trading labor, and this is how our small minded MBA's are taught free trade today. It is not conservative but radical.
As Marx pointed out the bourgeoisie maintained the most radical ideology the world has ever witnessed.
Obama and the rest of the free traders, both GOP and Dems, talk a good game of political smoke and mirror ramblings as to the benefits of it, but they never have any numbers or empirical evidence to back it up. If in fact they have some facts, they are awful quiet about it. Break out these facts and let's see if they can survive Descartesian doubt. If they can then great, if not sit down.
The only thing I've ever heard mentioned are statistics that show world poverty in down due to free trade. Although something tells me that does not the fly with the American worker or voter.
If the current "Free Trade" policies are so good for the US, prove it via analysis and facts not slight of hand language. Defeat the skeptics with this analysis.
Note: Our current Free Trade paradigm is not trading products but labor. When a Chinese national invents, designs, produces and ships his computer to US markets, that is free trade as Adam Smith saw it. As opposed to when Whirlpool closes down its US factories, and moves to Mexico and then ships its products back into the more lucrative US market, which is trading labor, and this is how our small minded MBA's are taught free trade today. It is not conservative but radical.
As Marx pointed out the bourgeoisie maintained the most radical ideology the world has ever witnessed.
3
Since automation is credited with reducing the demand for unskilled workers lets continue the current policy of opening our borders to unskilled immigrants making what low skilled jobs which remain harder to get. If they can't get jobs they go on public assistance requiring higher taxes or increased national debt. To be sure there are immigrant success stories but what is the effect on balance. Hillary wants to continue the present immigration flow and even increase it. Trumph offers an alternative - but at what cost?
5
The Chinese use basically slave labor to
build the products that fill our Walmart’s and Target’s (and every other store,
look at the labels at Saks).
If you go to the factories in Shenzhen they
have suicide nets under the dormitories, twelve people to a room, making our
sleek and beautiful iPhones.
Pollution controls are unheard of, toxic
stuff dumped in their rivers and our air.
In addition, they have a predatorily
priced currency.
This combination provides for a price point that Western
manufacturers simply cannot match, since they are required to provide not only
20 times the wage but health care and retirement.
Why is this somehow OK? Why is this
practice enshrined in a 'trade deal' thought of as sacrosanct?
Have you yourself
been to small town or mid-sized town American and seen the devastation, as if
by war? Have you been to the inner cities where young men don't
have any chance whatsoever of ever being employed by the manufacturers long
since departed? "Trade generally benefits the economy". Not evenly, however.
build the products that fill our Walmart’s and Target’s (and every other store,
look at the labels at Saks).
If you go to the factories in Shenzhen they
have suicide nets under the dormitories, twelve people to a room, making our
sleek and beautiful iPhones.
Pollution controls are unheard of, toxic
stuff dumped in their rivers and our air.
In addition, they have a predatorily
priced currency.
This combination provides for a price point that Western
manufacturers simply cannot match, since they are required to provide not only
20 times the wage but health care and retirement.
Why is this somehow OK? Why is this
practice enshrined in a 'trade deal' thought of as sacrosanct?
Have you yourself
been to small town or mid-sized town American and seen the devastation, as if
by war? Have you been to the inner cities where young men don't
have any chance whatsoever of ever being employed by the manufacturers long
since departed? "Trade generally benefits the economy". Not evenly, however.
9
For nearly fifty years, from its independence until the 1990's, India adopted protectionist trade policies which resulted in one of the slowest growing economies in the world. It is an object lesson for anyone who thinks limiting foreign trade is the way to raise the standards of those left behind.
2
"Many economists believe that automation has had a much bigger impact. They point out that other industrialized countries like Germany and Japan have also lost manufacturing jobs even though they, unlike the United States, export more than they import. Between 1990 and 2014, the number of manufacturing jobs fell by 34 percent in Japan, 31 percent in the United States and 25 percent in Germany, according to an April report by the Congressional Research Service."
So according to this article robots ("automation") has had a bigger impact on the loss of manufacturing jobs. Okay, I buy that line of argument. But what about the people who lost their jobs to automation? What is being done to get them back on their feet? These are our fellow human beings. At the very least we as a society should make a concerted effort to get them integrated back into gainful employment. Successful businesses that have parked trillions of dollars overseas in tax avoidance schemes need to bring that money back to the USA and invest in the future of this country. I know it goes against every "smart" business sense out there. But if they truly love this country they need to step up and take care of their fellow countrymen. I believe if they invest in this country's natural resources (i.e. it's people) they will be richly rewarded with handsome profits. I would bet on America...that is how you make it great in the first place.
So according to this article robots ("automation") has had a bigger impact on the loss of manufacturing jobs. Okay, I buy that line of argument. But what about the people who lost their jobs to automation? What is being done to get them back on their feet? These are our fellow human beings. At the very least we as a society should make a concerted effort to get them integrated back into gainful employment. Successful businesses that have parked trillions of dollars overseas in tax avoidance schemes need to bring that money back to the USA and invest in the future of this country. I know it goes against every "smart" business sense out there. But if they truly love this country they need to step up and take care of their fellow countrymen. I believe if they invest in this country's natural resources (i.e. it's people) they will be richly rewarded with handsome profits. I would bet on America...that is how you make it great in the first place.
5
at a minimum,
restructured-trade must:
take-into account the consequences of currency manipulation;
include a 'carbon-tax' to properly assess environmental impacts at both the source of goods and services as well as the "delivered-impacts" of same;
include all trades - - not just those affecting the mid-to-lower range of workers/providers;
take into account the living-conditions imposed/given-up at the source - -
including work relations, educational opportunities, socio-econo-political structures;
provide support mechanisms to retrain affected workers;
recalibrate a fair-distribution of corporate, ( and other entities ), income tax responsibilities to respective nation-states;
expand considerations and their consequences of striving for a "longer-view" as opposed-to the current practices that accents chiefly the 'next-quarterly-review';
assure that a minimal "family-income-level" is attainable for the efforts made by participants.
2
The thing hurting the US the most is the consolidation in every industry. If you own 2 manufacturing plants, you can't afford to shut 1 down and move it to say Vietnam to take advantage of lower wages, looser environmental regs, etc. However if you own 50 plants, then you can and do. And defanging any regulations limiting consolidation has been cornerstone of republican policy for decades. Unfortunately the shift to the right by democrats over last several decades means no real challenges to this. And the bankers just line up to finance the exportation.
3
What strikes me after having had a chance to look at these readers' comments is how much more perceptive the readers are than the editorial board.
No, trade doesn't destroy good jobs; faux "trade" agreements do. The Times can't - or won't - understand the difference.
No, trade doesn't destroy good jobs; faux "trade" agreements do. The Times can't - or won't - understand the difference.
79
Manufacturing and Technology News compiled a list in 2013 of companies moving factories overseas and eliminating thousands of American jobs.
They used information from Trade Adjustment Assistance filings to come up with the list. Needless to say, there have been many more since then.
Here are some of the companies and jobs lost here when they were moved to Asia, Mexico, and other countries.
Flextronixs Americas, Stafford TX: 147 workers laid off
Jabil, Tempe AZ: 500 workers laid off
Joy Global, Franklin PA: 245 workers laid off
Phillips Lighting, Bath NY: 265 workers laid off
Hewlett Packard, Conway, AR: 500 employees laid off
DAK Americas, Leland NC: 340 full-time workers, 264 contract workers laid off
Eli Lilly: 1000 workers laid off
Charles Inc, Council Bluffs, IA: 60 workers laid off
PDM Bridge, Proctor MN: 35 workers laid off
Honeywell Process Solutions, York PA: 100 workers laid off
Nordex USA, Jonesboro AK: 80 workers laid off
Tyco Electronics, Tullahoma TN: 33 workers laid off
Campbell's Soup, Canden NJ: 100 workers laid off
Cooper Interconnected, Salem NJ: 56 workers laid off
There are many, many more companies. These moves devastated not just families, but the small towns and cities were these businesses were located.
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/TAA0731131.html
They used information from Trade Adjustment Assistance filings to come up with the list. Needless to say, there have been many more since then.
Here are some of the companies and jobs lost here when they were moved to Asia, Mexico, and other countries.
Flextronixs Americas, Stafford TX: 147 workers laid off
Jabil, Tempe AZ: 500 workers laid off
Joy Global, Franklin PA: 245 workers laid off
Phillips Lighting, Bath NY: 265 workers laid off
Hewlett Packard, Conway, AR: 500 employees laid off
DAK Americas, Leland NC: 340 full-time workers, 264 contract workers laid off
Eli Lilly: 1000 workers laid off
Charles Inc, Council Bluffs, IA: 60 workers laid off
PDM Bridge, Proctor MN: 35 workers laid off
Honeywell Process Solutions, York PA: 100 workers laid off
Nordex USA, Jonesboro AK: 80 workers laid off
Tyco Electronics, Tullahoma TN: 33 workers laid off
Campbell's Soup, Canden NJ: 100 workers laid off
Cooper Interconnected, Salem NJ: 56 workers laid off
There are many, many more companies. These moves devastated not just families, but the small towns and cities were these businesses were located.
http://www.manufacturingnews.com/news/TAA0731131.html
51
I should add--these companies are based on TAA listings for the first 3 weeks of July 2013. Just 3 weeks, 4 years ago.
23
It is interesting to hear people with strong opinions about topics they know nothing about. Since I too know only a little, my opinion is not strong, but I do like that TPP raises environmental, rights, and labor standards in so many countries, and makes a leading partner in an area of the world where China would like to take our place--and in a way that would likely be worse for labor standards, rights, and the environment.
Though I am a passionate Clinton supporter, I'm not sure if she thinks she can actually improve the agreement and still keep it in place, with its benefits and leadership, and the continuing trust of participating countries. Without hearing that, I hope the lame duck session approves the TPP.
Though I am a passionate Clinton supporter, I'm not sure if she thinks she can actually improve the agreement and still keep it in place, with its benefits and leadership, and the continuing trust of participating countries. Without hearing that, I hope the lame duck session approves the TPP.
17
I don't remember anything about the TPP raising standards in the leaked documents that I have seen. What I have seen is new rights for global corporations to sue countries for future profits deemed lost to democratically designed policies that raise standards for the environment and labor.
3
This is a tautological argument: we know little because the details of the TPP were actively hidden not only from the people, but from the Congress. And since we know little, we are not entitled to judge. If not for Wikileaks, we would still know nothing. If the plutocrats are so afraid of the hoi polloi knowing what they're in for, it must be even worse than we can imagine.
2
Trade in an of itself is only a small part of the problem. The real problem is that we have one set of rules in our country and many of our trade partners have a completely different set of rules in theirs.
In a Global Capitalist Economy, that will not work. It is a race to the bottom.
If I want to make a spoon in the USA, I have workers health and safety rules, I have environmental rules, my workers are free (in theory) to unionize, and their is the rules of law (courts) to make sure we all follow the rules.
In many places we trade with, none of that exists except on paper. Therefore they can undermine my spoon factory by having lower input costs. They toss away workers who hurt themselves (no workman's comp), they dump their pollution in the river, workers cannot even talk to each other, and their are no meaningful courts.
As long as the people of the USA allow themselves to "get high" on the fix of cheep goods, this will not change. If everything sold in the USA had to match our rules, I suspect that 1/2 or more items would not be allowed in.
Of course if you are one of the people with a college education and good upper middle class job like the NY Times editorial board, then the cheep goods are great. But sooner or later the music stops. When that happens do not be surprised if you are the one without a chair.
In a Global Capitalist Economy, that will not work. It is a race to the bottom.
If I want to make a spoon in the USA, I have workers health and safety rules, I have environmental rules, my workers are free (in theory) to unionize, and their is the rules of law (courts) to make sure we all follow the rules.
In many places we trade with, none of that exists except on paper. Therefore they can undermine my spoon factory by having lower input costs. They toss away workers who hurt themselves (no workman's comp), they dump their pollution in the river, workers cannot even talk to each other, and their are no meaningful courts.
As long as the people of the USA allow themselves to "get high" on the fix of cheep goods, this will not change. If everything sold in the USA had to match our rules, I suspect that 1/2 or more items would not be allowed in.
Of course if you are one of the people with a college education and good upper middle class job like the NY Times editorial board, then the cheep goods are great. But sooner or later the music stops. When that happens do not be surprised if you are the one without a chair.
63
Um, setting basic wage and environmental thresholds is what trade agreements do. You should try reading one sometime. Yeesh.
What this country needs is an honest debate about the risks and benefits of trade, like Senator Warren and President Obama have had. What we now hear is shouting from Donald Trump that China is "raping" us and empty promises to revive lost jobs. The former is obscured by the latter and we all pay the price for the inability to really understand what global trade really does to us, for ill or for good, or even its inevitability.
6
That a globalized economy will have winners and losers is all true, but when crooked lying Trump demagogues the issue by promising to bring back jobs we can't compete with, he is telling folks lies, just to stay relvant about issues he has no idea whatsoever. He is a charlatan whose arrogance impedes a clear vision of the difficulties ahead, and requiring complex answers from partners, foreign and domestic, so we can create more jobs with a living wage at home-
9
ON ECONOMIC WEALTH
Arguments for free trade are about growing economic productivity - Ricardo and all subsequent elaborations focus on expanding *economic* *wealth* - the production of things. We have more goods and services because we trade. The fault with that is not that it is wrong, it's that it has limitations.
Economic wealth maximization is not all that matters. We may be better served, at some point (I'd say now), by *limiting* trade, dampening growth in material/economic wealth, and creating well-being through maximizing other things that contribute to quality of life... things like more even distribution of the wealth, greater access to the infrastructure of high quality of life (e.g., education, healthcare), and protecting the environment.
For example, we have more t-shirts because Wm. Clinton granted most-favored-nation status to China in 1994. We have more t-shirts and more of everything... lots of stuff. But we also have an increasingly bimodal distribution of income and wealth. We have more iPhones and TVs but we're ruining the environment for future generations and all other forms of life.
It may well be that Ricardo was right - trade expands the economy... but it may be that it expands until it consumes us. We drown in our stuff.
Limiting trade may support a more robust middle class, a better environment, and a better quality of life, despite not maximizing material wealth.
Hillary will do well to limit trade (Trump will be back in Atlantic City).
Arguments for free trade are about growing economic productivity - Ricardo and all subsequent elaborations focus on expanding *economic* *wealth* - the production of things. We have more goods and services because we trade. The fault with that is not that it is wrong, it's that it has limitations.
Economic wealth maximization is not all that matters. We may be better served, at some point (I'd say now), by *limiting* trade, dampening growth in material/economic wealth, and creating well-being through maximizing other things that contribute to quality of life... things like more even distribution of the wealth, greater access to the infrastructure of high quality of life (e.g., education, healthcare), and protecting the environment.
For example, we have more t-shirts because Wm. Clinton granted most-favored-nation status to China in 1994. We have more t-shirts and more of everything... lots of stuff. But we also have an increasingly bimodal distribution of income and wealth. We have more iPhones and TVs but we're ruining the environment for future generations and all other forms of life.
It may well be that Ricardo was right - trade expands the economy... but it may be that it expands until it consumes us. We drown in our stuff.
Limiting trade may support a more robust middle class, a better environment, and a better quality of life, despite not maximizing material wealth.
Hillary will do well to limit trade (Trump will be back in Atlantic City).
11
Not long ago, I read an article about reshoring of several businesses and the difficulty managers encountered in finding workers who were willing to learn the math needed run the new generation of machines.
Does America have to make sure that we always have plenty of jobs for uneducable people? That sounds like a difficult assignment.
Does America have to make sure that we always have plenty of jobs for uneducable people? That sounds like a difficult assignment.
2
Are they ineducable or uneducated? And if ineducable, where does the fault lie - in their genes or in a society that failed to provide the necessary guidance early in life? And why was that guidance absent?
One perception is that the U.S.had "kissed" countries with money and trade deals to: buy them as an ally and having their support, to appease special interests and political self interest back home or other international aspects. Meanwhile the state of global warming it seems will escalate fast and water and food will be scarce. All this and the dumbest social media brain dead youth and crazies planning on voting with reactive emotion.
Trade issues seem small in this mess.
Trade issues seem small in this mess.
1
We could never compete with countries who manufacture without regard to the enviorment or pay fair wages. Our trade negotiators are just not as clever or cut throat as other countries. We lose lose lose.
15
Thanks for insulting my intelligence.
No, no, no. Automation is not the culprit of those lost jobs.
Your toothpaste, soap, detergent, etal used to be manufactured in the US and now they are not. Those facilities no longer exist. They have closed. Your toiletries are done in Mexico.
No, no, no. Automation is not the culprit of those lost jobs.
Your toothpaste, soap, detergent, etal used to be manufactured in the US and now they are not. Those facilities no longer exist. They have closed. Your toiletries are done in Mexico.
34
It is important to quantify the number of jobs lost to automation now and in the future as a marker to compare that to jobs lost due to NAFTA and other trade deals.
Also, it is important to figure if Clinton's rhetoric on trade genuinely fits how she will govern as president. After all she did describe TPP as " the gold standard of trade agreements" not long ago only to shift after Bernie Sanders gained momentum after opposing that trade deal.
Also, it is important to figure if Clinton's rhetoric on trade genuinely fits how she will govern as president. After all she did describe TPP as " the gold standard of trade agreements" not long ago only to shift after Bernie Sanders gained momentum after opposing that trade deal.
16
Trade benefits the economy. But the economy benefits fewer and fewer. So maybe we should stop implicitly assuming that anything that benefits the economy is good, and start asking whether trade, or anything else, benefits people and Earth's other creatures.
32
Many, many Americans want to see simple solutions to complex problems. They want to see answers to all their questions in terms of yes or no, stop and go. They don't have the patience to research the issues. They want to believe what they want to believe and have always believed. And they will rarely if ever support a proposal which might in any way adversely affect their own pocketbook. The person who wins the popular vote will be the person who taps into the biases of the largest group of voters.
9
"trade isn't the main force destroying good jobs"
True; the main force destroying good jobs is the fact that automation has eliminated the need for many humans who don't have a certain minimum intelligence level. And that of course is only going to get worse, as the intelligence bar is raised ever higher. Supporting policies that facilitate poorer (and on average less intelligent) people having more kids only exacerbates the problem.
True; the main force destroying good jobs is the fact that automation has eliminated the need for many humans who don't have a certain minimum intelligence level. And that of course is only going to get worse, as the intelligence bar is raised ever higher. Supporting policies that facilitate poorer (and on average less intelligent) people having more kids only exacerbates the problem.
10
I doubt that intelligence is the issue. Very well trained people, including PhD's, can't find work. The reason: big business is not operated to improve our lives or their employees' lives. It is operated to make money, not through services provided (except as a byproduct) but by manipulation of markets and finances that do nothing but enrich CEOs.
3
I the authors know what does not hurt good jobs, they must also know what does. Well, what is it then? It is easy to criticize, offering no solutions. The problem is that the elites that rule our society have ran out of ideas (as, naturally, all elites should and inevitably do) and since they want to protect their status and their dominant position, they do their best to suppress new ideas. That's how we ended up in this situation. I wonder how many more people will be sacrificed to this elite rule.
8
Well trade can be a good thing when it shows benefits to both countries. Those benefits can be supporting the economies of less developed countries that are friendly to us. If we want jobs that our consumption supports we need trade that delivers jobs and other benefits to the US. It is not a scrape goat but rather a choice, we get cheap stuff and they get jobs and economic activity. I choose jobs rather than cheap stuff.
14
If it is possible, I'd choose jobs, but not jobs to make cheap stuff. What are those jobs? It's clear that we need teachers, more doctors, better politicians, and on and on. Why isn't that happening? Why are CEOs paid millions to shuffle paper, to merge, to divest, to buy back stock, to lobby government, while we can't afford to do what we obviously need to do?
3
An excellent primer on the pros and cons of trade, and in this way a rational antidote to the rhetorical extremes of all trade is good (formal Republican ideology) and all trade is bad (Trump).
Unfortunately the editorial writer misses the opportunity to get specific about TPP.
TPP, as Paul Krugman – who know a bit or two about the economics of trade – has pointed out, is, from the standpoint of projected benefit for the US, not a traditional trade deal. At its core it is about intellectual property rights.
More specifically, it is about the intellectual property rights of two industries:
1. Hollywood, as a metaphor for the complex of movies, TV, music, and packaged entertainment generally.
2. The US pharmaceutical industry, which it is convenient to collectively refer to by its main trade association, PhRMA.
Indeed, TPP has been called the Mickey Mouse (Disney) and PhRMA Relief Act of 2016.
That Hollywood’s intellectual property be protected and thus be allowed to maximize its monetary potential is arguably a good thing for the US.
That PhRMA be unleashed to try to raise the general level of prescription drug prices around the world up to the rapacious levels we experience in the US is not good for anyone except PhRMA executives who want to purchase third and fourth vacation homes in Florida and Maine, and a penthouse in Manhattan for good measure.
This is the specific reason why the US should, with apologies to Mickey Mouse’s extended copyright, say no to TPP.
Unfortunately the editorial writer misses the opportunity to get specific about TPP.
TPP, as Paul Krugman – who know a bit or two about the economics of trade – has pointed out, is, from the standpoint of projected benefit for the US, not a traditional trade deal. At its core it is about intellectual property rights.
More specifically, it is about the intellectual property rights of two industries:
1. Hollywood, as a metaphor for the complex of movies, TV, music, and packaged entertainment generally.
2. The US pharmaceutical industry, which it is convenient to collectively refer to by its main trade association, PhRMA.
Indeed, TPP has been called the Mickey Mouse (Disney) and PhRMA Relief Act of 2016.
That Hollywood’s intellectual property be protected and thus be allowed to maximize its monetary potential is arguably a good thing for the US.
That PhRMA be unleashed to try to raise the general level of prescription drug prices around the world up to the rapacious levels we experience in the US is not good for anyone except PhRMA executives who want to purchase third and fourth vacation homes in Florida and Maine, and a penthouse in Manhattan for good measure.
This is the specific reason why the US should, with apologies to Mickey Mouse’s extended copyright, say no to TPP.
36
We rage against Americans losing their jobs to corporations moving their operations to places where they can abuse their employees, but keep their managements position here, with imported foreigners in those positions, but no training for the Americans who got laid off. It's not the trade, it's the companies who have taken advantage of these trade deals, to the detriment of Americans, and their owners who get rich in the process. But, we can't really attack those companies, so we attack the pipeline, the treaties.
39
I would posit that it is not just the NUMBER of jobs lost. But the quality of the jobs that were lost (and continues to lose) and the low quality of jobs they were replaced with. So, median income declined on top of job losses. One should also note that although the trend started in the blue collar world, the trend now is drilling into the white collar world (so those who think they are safe, look out).
The article states Germany lost 25% of its manufacturing jobs but yet was still able to maintain a trade SURPLUS and somehow manages a LOWER unemployment rate than the U.S. I do not know what the income stats in Germany are but I presume they are better than those for American median income.
The main difference is that Germany's government felt some responsibility for safeguarding the interests of its own citizens and workforce where the U.S. did not. The American government just sold out to the highest bidder.
The belated words on the matter of trade policy is too little, too late. And, there is also the question of follow-though. Words are nice. Concrete and substantial action would be better.
The article states Germany lost 25% of its manufacturing jobs but yet was still able to maintain a trade SURPLUS and somehow manages a LOWER unemployment rate than the U.S. I do not know what the income stats in Germany are but I presume they are better than those for American median income.
The main difference is that Germany's government felt some responsibility for safeguarding the interests of its own citizens and workforce where the U.S. did not. The American government just sold out to the highest bidder.
The belated words on the matter of trade policy is too little, too late. And, there is also the question of follow-though. Words are nice. Concrete and substantial action would be better.
119
Your thesis is flawed as to fact. In 2014, median household gross wages (1 earner, 2 children) adjusted for living expenses was $57,139. In Germany, it was $43,872.
Compulsory deductions from gross wages were: U.S., 20.61%, Germany 33.83%.
(Source: OECD, 2014)
Compulsory deductions from gross wages were: U.S., 20.61%, Germany 33.83%.
(Source: OECD, 2014)
The lack of information in this entire conversation is severely disappointing.
"The United States trades with most countries under the rules of the World Trade Organization. It also has preferential deals with individual nations or groups of countries, like the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, which go beyond tariffs and quotas and address issues like intellectual property rights."
This paragraph implies that the WTO rules are nothing but tariffs and quotas, but the WTO system has an entire treaty (TRIPS) devoted to the trade related aspects of intellectual property.
"Mrs. Clinton has not offered details of what that would look like, but her approach would mean . . . negotiating provisions that would require other countries to improve their labor and environmental standards."
The US has done this since NAFTA in a side agreement (NAAEC) and in the trade agreements, themselves, since the Jordan FTA negotiated in the late 90's and ratified in 2001. The TPP is the strongest trade agreement to date on the US side in regards to labor an environmental standards. It moves past simply obliging countries to follow their commitments to their multilateral environmental agreements and actually imposes new, more rigorous obligations on environmental issues like fishing and labor matters like the right to unionize.
You would think an area where FDR and Reagan agreed wouldn't be so controversial, but here we are nonetheless.
"The United States trades with most countries under the rules of the World Trade Organization. It also has preferential deals with individual nations or groups of countries, like the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, which go beyond tariffs and quotas and address issues like intellectual property rights."
This paragraph implies that the WTO rules are nothing but tariffs and quotas, but the WTO system has an entire treaty (TRIPS) devoted to the trade related aspects of intellectual property.
"Mrs. Clinton has not offered details of what that would look like, but her approach would mean . . . negotiating provisions that would require other countries to improve their labor and environmental standards."
The US has done this since NAFTA in a side agreement (NAAEC) and in the trade agreements, themselves, since the Jordan FTA negotiated in the late 90's and ratified in 2001. The TPP is the strongest trade agreement to date on the US side in regards to labor an environmental standards. It moves past simply obliging countries to follow their commitments to their multilateral environmental agreements and actually imposes new, more rigorous obligations on environmental issues like fishing and labor matters like the right to unionize.
You would think an area where FDR and Reagan agreed wouldn't be so controversial, but here we are nonetheless.
2
The TPP is mostly about protections for drug firms and intellectual properties like software and films. Also there is a section of the treaty that would allow foreign countries to sue us if any of our environmental and other laws affect their bottom lines.
Note that none of these issues receives mention in this editorial; sort of like the Times' Russia bashing pieces that fail to mention NATO's encroachment on its eastern front.
Note that none of these issues receives mention in this editorial; sort of like the Times' Russia bashing pieces that fail to mention NATO's encroachment on its eastern front.
5
A more proper headline would have been 'A Rage Against Trade Agreements'. In the body of the opinion you use trade and trade agreement as if they were the same thing. TPP for example is less about trade than it is about insuring the position and power of corporations in a manner that is not in the interest of the people. ISDS, if it needs to exist at all, needs to be recrafted in its entirety. Thus, since the vote can only be up or down under the fast track protocol. The proposal should be rejected. Perhaps writing it in secret with only proponents at the table was not such a good idea.
6
The problem is that this editorial casually dismisses the fact that there are "losers" in trade deals. The editorial, however, simply dismisses such persons as "angry" people, minimizes the impact of trade on job loss, and does not even propose a solution for their loss.
This elitist dismissiveness is the very reason that a fool like Trump got so far, as he at least acknowledges those who are hurt, even if he does not have concrete solutions. Being able to pay lower prices for imported goods does nothing for a person who does not have money in his or her pocket.
This elitist dismissiveness is the very reason that a fool like Trump got so far, as he at least acknowledges those who are hurt, even if he does not have concrete solutions. Being able to pay lower prices for imported goods does nothing for a person who does not have money in his or her pocket.
7
The rage is not against trade per se. The headline should read: "The Rage Against Trade Agreements" and therein lies the rage.
Take the TPP--Please! Under the guise of being a trade bill to facilitate the exchange of goods and services among nations, the TPP should more accurately be labeled "The Elitist Corporate Hegemony Takeover." Largely overseen and perhaps written by corporate lobbyists and representatives, the TPP "agreement" turns out to be: heads corporations win, and tails American workers and government authority lose.
1. Workers: Hillary came over the Bernie's side when she acknowledged there was noting in this TPP corporate agreement for American workers, who admittedly stand to lose (again) to cheap labor abroad. How does the TPP help the middle class in this country? Call me Polyanna, but when you work out an effective "agreement," shouldn't there be something in the agreement for both sides? Every benefit in the TPP is for the corporations; not even a crumb for our workers. Too greedy (once again). RAGE
2. Corporations Trump Governments: Maybe the worst thing about the TPP is that if businesses disagree with government regulations and policy and believe it harms corporate business and profits, the corporations can sue the government (national, state, local). If disputed, it goes before an appointed arbitration board to resolve (Hello, rigged system). E.g: polluting gas companies will sue if told NO by people & local gvts; go to arbitration; & win. RAGE
Take the TPP--Please! Under the guise of being a trade bill to facilitate the exchange of goods and services among nations, the TPP should more accurately be labeled "The Elitist Corporate Hegemony Takeover." Largely overseen and perhaps written by corporate lobbyists and representatives, the TPP "agreement" turns out to be: heads corporations win, and tails American workers and government authority lose.
1. Workers: Hillary came over the Bernie's side when she acknowledged there was noting in this TPP corporate agreement for American workers, who admittedly stand to lose (again) to cheap labor abroad. How does the TPP help the middle class in this country? Call me Polyanna, but when you work out an effective "agreement," shouldn't there be something in the agreement for both sides? Every benefit in the TPP is for the corporations; not even a crumb for our workers. Too greedy (once again). RAGE
2. Corporations Trump Governments: Maybe the worst thing about the TPP is that if businesses disagree with government regulations and policy and believe it harms corporate business and profits, the corporations can sue the government (national, state, local). If disputed, it goes before an appointed arbitration board to resolve (Hello, rigged system). E.g: polluting gas companies will sue if told NO by people & local gvts; go to arbitration; & win. RAGE
8
The trade is only good for big corporations, from America, specially.Other nations can not play the same game like America does, and take so many advantages. The big bird eats the little ones. Trade caused the inequality between classes, this is very simple. All good jobs americans had for so many generations, now is gone for good. We need to create a technical schools to make the working class better. Trade will continue even if we like or not. Unfortunately the winners are always the same , corporations and investors, the rest does not matter.
If the gamblers of the Wall Street have gold key of a sofisticated mathematical formula to horder all the money they can take, trade became part of this game in a very simple way. There's no trade regulations, specifically between nations ,just because of differences in laws, they have a basic regulations that has nothing to do with protecting jobs , or creating jobs. Obviously all corporations priority is profit over workers, and trade is the key of that. They had to moved over seas for one main reason, "profit".We have a capitalism dominant system that protect business and transactions before employees. No trade agreement will change that.
2
It's neither automation nor trade agreements that underlie the present economic stagnation. It is rather the lack of demand for do-dads, financial flim-flam, and reality TV. It's time large American businesses saw their business as improving American lives, and not merger and divesting and monopoly and government lobbying.
2
We should not only be raging against trade but the evil greed it encompasses.
Making cheap goods in China for pennies on the dollar and selling it here for large sums is what's ruining trade. It has in turn become a modern day slave trade. Not exactly indentured but pretty darn close. Wealth and ethics are not compatible. Job killing state side is all about greed.
Greed is killing all of us.
Let the greed heads choke on their money and die with it stuffed into their pockets.
Making cheap goods in China for pennies on the dollar and selling it here for large sums is what's ruining trade. It has in turn become a modern day slave trade. Not exactly indentured but pretty darn close. Wealth and ethics are not compatible. Job killing state side is all about greed.
Greed is killing all of us.
Let the greed heads choke on their money and die with it stuffed into their pockets.
4
Innovative American manufacturers withstood the onslaught of NAFTA and the technological innovation that drives globalization by staying ahead of the global curve. Those companies that failed to invest in their future were swept away. The devastation of the rust belt in the north and the hollowed out textile industry in the south is a reflection of the greed and a lack of imagination of the owners and directors of those industries. Global trade agreements only accelerated their inevitable demise. The owners/investors got out with their fortunes by leaving the workers high and dry.
3
If nothing else, Brexit was a way-up call to the political establishment and bunch of others like myself that have benefited from trade deals. We can't just shrug of the effects of globalism by saying, "Well, that's how a modern economy works" and forget about those caught in the middle. We can't go back in time and deny trade is here to stay anymore than we can reverse digitalization or automation. However, what we can do, it make the process more humane. Resistance to globalization and trade resonates with voters for a reason. Those that want to truly represent US citizens in government better figure out why and what to do about it.
7
The NYT's editorial board is extremely naive, uninformed and reflects the 1% talking points. The Koch bros couldn't be prouder. I have an Economics background and I support fair trade but that does not exist for a variety of reasons.
Foreign governments, companies and workers target American jobs at any cost because they raise their standard of living and just as important they transfer knowledge to their country. This is not an organic event. It's planned. Govt's like China will always cheat because they cannot afford millions of unemployed workers rioting. That is a threat to the regime. They also want the knowledge transfer so they can start their own gov't owned company to steal the IP and wealth created by Americans. Ask Apple or Google and thousands of other US co's. The stealing and corruption is constant.
Foreign companies, many of which are gov't owned, want the contracts to increase their wealth. US co's help them in the process and pay bribes for market access. Foreign workers apply for US jobs every day and ask for Visa's and Green Cards. Go to LinkedIN and apply for a tech job and then look at the geography of where all applicants are applying from. India has created a tech training industry to take these jobs.
US workers have to compete against all of the above before we even get to how US regulation and technology provide even more headwinds. It's time for some realistic thinking not talking points.
Foreign governments, companies and workers target American jobs at any cost because they raise their standard of living and just as important they transfer knowledge to their country. This is not an organic event. It's planned. Govt's like China will always cheat because they cannot afford millions of unemployed workers rioting. That is a threat to the regime. They also want the knowledge transfer so they can start their own gov't owned company to steal the IP and wealth created by Americans. Ask Apple or Google and thousands of other US co's. The stealing and corruption is constant.
Foreign companies, many of which are gov't owned, want the contracts to increase their wealth. US co's help them in the process and pay bribes for market access. Foreign workers apply for US jobs every day and ask for Visa's and Green Cards. Go to LinkedIN and apply for a tech job and then look at the geography of where all applicants are applying from. India has created a tech training industry to take these jobs.
US workers have to compete against all of the above before we even get to how US regulation and technology provide even more headwinds. It's time for some realistic thinking not talking points.
18
We need to rethink our American economy beginning with how can we achieve full-employment at a living-wage for all American workers. Then determine how we will sustain this as automation eliminates more and more of our current jobs. This is a huge and daunting task but it MUST be done for the stability of our nation.
Workers with good jobs are good consumers, which drives the economy. Workers who are confident of the future and have a good education are creative and are more likely to start new businesses.
It all starts with a plan which can only be accomplished by the government. The private sector has different goals (maximize profits regardless of the harm to society).
Workers with good jobs are good consumers, which drives the economy. Workers who are confident of the future and have a good education are creative and are more likely to start new businesses.
It all starts with a plan which can only be accomplished by the government. The private sector has different goals (maximize profits regardless of the harm to society).
2
Corporations can sue gov'ts for laws that stand in the way of corporate profit. Already happening - Canadian company suing U.S. over oil pipeline; U.S. co. suing Canada over lost profits in oil sand mining restrictions. Many others. Job loss is bad; loss of sovereignty is worse. Taxpayers lose and lose; Greed & profits for the few prevail.
13
Opposing trade is like throwing baby with the bathwater. Technology and science is mostly done in US and few other nations, and trade is the vehicle to reach it everywhere. Trade, makes it possible for us to enjoy fruits of labor, which for years to come shall be far more than manhours available within US.
If there is no real concern for people beyond US shores among people like Bernie and Trump supporters, and if such indifference to fate of other nations, derail long standing trade policies, and the new one TPP, it would be a grave economic and strategic setback and a lose-lose proposition. Hope better sense prevails.
If there is no real concern for people beyond US shores among people like Bernie and Trump supporters, and if such indifference to fate of other nations, derail long standing trade policies, and the new one TPP, it would be a grave economic and strategic setback and a lose-lose proposition. Hope better sense prevails.
2
I support trade; however, we need to understand that capitalism has winners and losers. The people who have lost are in free fall without a safety net, and have been for years. We are kidding ourselves if we think manufacturing will ever return on a scale seen 40 years ago. However, when our trading partners are developing nations, we must recognize there will be a great wage discrepancy between the two nations, and the nation with the higher wages will lose. That is what has happened here. Perhaps one day, we will see the rise of international trade unions. Until that day, there are steps we can take to level the playing field. We need to compel US companies, through a carrot/stick approach, to focus on long term gains instead of immediate results. That can be accomplished through taxes. We need to bring home off shored money, lower corporate taxes and close corporate tax loopholes. GE should not pay zero taxes while small businesses are paying significantly more. Finally, community colleges and state schools must establish partnerships with unemployed workers and high school students, to train them in careers of the future. This should include internships that transition to paid employment. We can no longer afford to focus only on capitalism's winners.
68
If you're running a consistent and significant trade defecit, you're losing. I've seen multiple efforts to sugarcoat this reality, but they fall short. When an individual or a nation spends more than they make, they are headed for trouble. Now we've lost much of our manufacturing capability (with robots as well as humans), and our competitors are starting to buy our hard assets, such as houses, companies, and water rights.
America has two systemic disadvantages in this competition. First, it costs too much to live here. You have to pay workers enough to pay for housing and health care. Second, you have to make whatever you make without trashing the environment. That adds to costs. The concept of fair trade would mitigate these differences; Germany and Australia (for example) have similar laws and conditions; China and Mexico do not.
Whatever happened to "what the market will bear" as a predictor of prices? When I see statements that making something here will increase prices, I wonder about that one. If that principle still holds, it might reduce profits instead. Maybe that's the real driver behind fair trade.
Finally, trade agreements or not, there will be a surplus of labor for the forseeable future. Without some mechanism to prop up the value of labor, it will collapse, and there will be no one to buy all those services or manufactured goods. Then the world will revert to historical norms, where a few people control everything and the rest live at their sufferance.
America has two systemic disadvantages in this competition. First, it costs too much to live here. You have to pay workers enough to pay for housing and health care. Second, you have to make whatever you make without trashing the environment. That adds to costs. The concept of fair trade would mitigate these differences; Germany and Australia (for example) have similar laws and conditions; China and Mexico do not.
Whatever happened to "what the market will bear" as a predictor of prices? When I see statements that making something here will increase prices, I wonder about that one. If that principle still holds, it might reduce profits instead. Maybe that's the real driver behind fair trade.
Finally, trade agreements or not, there will be a surplus of labor for the forseeable future. Without some mechanism to prop up the value of labor, it will collapse, and there will be no one to buy all those services or manufactured goods. Then the world will revert to historical norms, where a few people control everything and the rest live at their sufferance.
5
Donald Trump fires up the audience when he gives specifics about Carrier and Nabisco building manufacturing plants in Mexico. The NY Times Editorial Board fails to mention the reasons underlying this type of U.S. job loss. Carrier and Nabisco aren’t building the new plants in the U.S. and Apple manufactures i-phones in China because: the C corporation tax of 35% is too high, the 15.7% combined payroll tax applies to each job and mandatory health insurance is too expensive. The Democrats offer no hope of fixing the tax and regulatory mess because over many decades they have offered adjustments in the form of tax expenditures (credits, deductions, special rates, deferrals and exemptions) that favor some workers and some businesses at the expense of the others. Republicans in Congress know tax favoritism is unfair but can’t say no to anything that seems to help a business. Even the temporary fixes are renewed each year via tax extender packages that contain enough pork for each party to pass the bill.
The economy needs radical tax reform. Consider a system where taxpayers can choose a rate between 8% and 28% paired with a wealth tax ranging from 2% down to zero. Combine this with a $500,000 wealth tax exemption for retirement, health care and education and no payroll taxes. A 4% VAT and 8% C corporation tax would balance the formula needed to encourage job creation and power equitable economic growth. Tax reform first, free trade agreements after the system is fixed.
The economy needs radical tax reform. Consider a system where taxpayers can choose a rate between 8% and 28% paired with a wealth tax ranging from 2% down to zero. Combine this with a $500,000 wealth tax exemption for retirement, health care and education and no payroll taxes. A 4% VAT and 8% C corporation tax would balance the formula needed to encourage job creation and power equitable economic growth. Tax reform first, free trade agreements after the system is fixed.
3
"Many economists believe that automation has had a much bigger impact."
Many economists need to get out the office more often. By simply cataloging over time typical products in a typical household and looking at where they are made will make it clear that 'automation' isn’t the biggest difference, where the products are made is. In my lifetime I've looked at products and where they are made, yes even mundane products like toothpicks, can openers, screwdrivers, underwear, etc., and clearly, obviously, to everyone that I've mentioned it to, there is agreement that it is difficult to find US made products in typical stores these days. All one needs to do is to consider the many factories that use to make such products that were spread across the country, and to consider what happened to the jobs when those products were outsourced.
If it were just automation we would still see 'Made in the U.S.A' on the many products in our households, but that is clearly, obviously, not the case.
I wish the NYT would just come clean on why they support trade even when it means the loss of millions of jobs in the country, and why they think that it is good for everyone. If the bottom line for the working and middle class is to 'just deal with it', say so, but don't please don’t offend our sensibilities with statements like the above.
Many economists need to get out the office more often. By simply cataloging over time typical products in a typical household and looking at where they are made will make it clear that 'automation' isn’t the biggest difference, where the products are made is. In my lifetime I've looked at products and where they are made, yes even mundane products like toothpicks, can openers, screwdrivers, underwear, etc., and clearly, obviously, to everyone that I've mentioned it to, there is agreement that it is difficult to find US made products in typical stores these days. All one needs to do is to consider the many factories that use to make such products that were spread across the country, and to consider what happened to the jobs when those products were outsourced.
If it were just automation we would still see 'Made in the U.S.A' on the many products in our households, but that is clearly, obviously, not the case.
I wish the NYT would just come clean on why they support trade even when it means the loss of millions of jobs in the country, and why they think that it is good for everyone. If the bottom line for the working and middle class is to 'just deal with it', say so, but don't please don’t offend our sensibilities with statements like the above.
5
The sweet spot for the American middle class was 1947-73 when workers compensation rose in lockstep with productivity. Then abruptly the rewards for higher productivity started going to shareholders, financiers and top executives. One of the reasons for this turnabout over the past several decades is the Republican Party's s evisceration of trade unions that steadily weakened worker's bargaining rights. Case in point.
According to a 2014 article by Harold Meyerson published in the American Prospect, "Germany has a greater level of foreign trade than the U.S. and a comparable level of technological change, but it has managed to retain its best manufacturing jobs, because of the greater power that its workers exercise and the diminished role its shareholders play. In Germany, law and custom have enabled labor and required management to collaborate on making sure that the most highly skilled and compensated jobs remain at home."
Yes, globalization, trade deals and automation have done their part in weakening worker's opportunities and compensation, but greed by the monied class and its Republican cronies have done the most damage to the middle class.
According to a 2014 article by Harold Meyerson published in the American Prospect, "Germany has a greater level of foreign trade than the U.S. and a comparable level of technological change, but it has managed to retain its best manufacturing jobs, because of the greater power that its workers exercise and the diminished role its shareholders play. In Germany, law and custom have enabled labor and required management to collaborate on making sure that the most highly skilled and compensated jobs remain at home."
Yes, globalization, trade deals and automation have done their part in weakening worker's opportunities and compensation, but greed by the monied class and its Republican cronies have done the most damage to the middle class.
2
This is a very tepid defense of open/free trade from an Editorial board that has long been a champion of these deals. Back in the 1980's when "Made In America" was going strong, this board accused its supporters of only caring about their own wealth. It championed the lower prices for the poor, never seeing the catch-22. So I would expect a stronger response here as well as a more thorough examination of the pluses and minuses, not just assumptions from other researchers. The times has the staff to fully explore this and should assign a few reporters to investigate the true impact of trade. Otherwise comments like these will just add to the continuing confusion.
2
The true fault for income inequality and the economic malaise we suffer from is not with trade--but with taxes.
The Reagan era tax cuts to the top tax rate--cuts that have never really be reversed in a real, meaningful way--paved the way for the 1% set to raise their "compensation" packages to obscene multiples of the average wage--multiples that are unheard of in the rest of the developed world.
The sad but somewhat laughable truth is that most Americans a net beneficiaries of trade--benefits that come in the form of far lower prices for a wide range of items--from televisions to computers, cellphones and clothing--tearing up the existing trade deals would do little to recreate lost industies and jobs--many of which disappeared because of technology.
The Reagan era tax cuts to the top tax rate--cuts that have never really be reversed in a real, meaningful way--paved the way for the 1% set to raise their "compensation" packages to obscene multiples of the average wage--multiples that are unheard of in the rest of the developed world.
The sad but somewhat laughable truth is that most Americans a net beneficiaries of trade--benefits that come in the form of far lower prices for a wide range of items--from televisions to computers, cellphones and clothing--tearing up the existing trade deals would do little to recreate lost industies and jobs--many of which disappeared because of technology.
The Editorial Board Misses an important point:
Capitalists who are hoping to make more profit will do anything they can to lower the costs of production. If this means automating jobs, they will do it. Or, if it means setting up shop in China with cheap laborers, they will do it. To claim that automation has hurt the economy more than free trade is to entirely miss the structural cause behind both automation and free trade. It is also another form of scapegoating.
The reality is some combination of automation and free trade has gotten rid of a significant number of jobs in this country. The reason this happened is because of capitalism. In a capitalist economy, the accumulation of capital trumps caring for society. Of course, the irony is that in wiping out the middle class by automating and exporting jobs, capitalists shoot themselves in the foot. Eventually, no one will have enough money to buy their goods.
Capitalists who are hoping to make more profit will do anything they can to lower the costs of production. If this means automating jobs, they will do it. Or, if it means setting up shop in China with cheap laborers, they will do it. To claim that automation has hurt the economy more than free trade is to entirely miss the structural cause behind both automation and free trade. It is also another form of scapegoating.
The reality is some combination of automation and free trade has gotten rid of a significant number of jobs in this country. The reason this happened is because of capitalism. In a capitalist economy, the accumulation of capital trumps caring for society. Of course, the irony is that in wiping out the middle class by automating and exporting jobs, capitalists shoot themselves in the foot. Eventually, no one will have enough money to buy their goods.
4
Poisoned milk, poisoned pharmaceuticals, poisoned dog food, poisoned toys, poisoned toothpaste, poisoned drywall, all without the safety oversight routinely provided US goods--you have to be delusional to buy anything made in China. Greedy corporations and politicians talk about "free trade," but there's nothing free about slave labor, manipulated currency exchanges, total disregard for the environment, stolen intellectual property, and war against unions. We are patsies for another cheap pair of jeans, while our country goes down the tubes. We are funding our own demise. Unless American consumers wake up and force politicians demand reciprocity in all economic deals, we are doomed.
8
While automation and technological innovation have eliminated many jobs, we also need to look at environmental regulation. I do not think it is a coincidence that the demise of the steel industry occurred at the same time that regulations on air and water pollution were being enforced.
Yes, it's nice that the air and water in Pittsburgh are much cleaner than 50 years ago, but this came at the cost of many well-paying manufacturing jobs.
Yes, it's nice that the air and water in Pittsburgh are much cleaner than 50 years ago, but this came at the cost of many well-paying manufacturing jobs.
1
No going back!! Global trade is here to stay. But how to reconcile it with its sometimes unforeseen impact on American jobs and salaries. This editorial contributes to an important national conversation about the role of global trade and its significance for the US economy. First, some of the dislocations that have affected many workers in the US may not originate with these trade agreements. Offshoring jobs arises from other corporate tricks. Second, corporations also use H visas to hire temporary foreign workers at lower wages because allegedly they cannot find workers in the US-frequently a bogus claim. Third, as consumers, we matter. Buy American; support jobs through your purchases!!
However, whatever the origins of the problems, we have done little to support American workers. Little or no support for real job training (including traditional apprenticeships), limited support for college degrees and little support for innovative small business and R & D.
We have to continue to engage in lively conversation about global trade agreements but with even more energy and commitment find effective strategies to tap into the exceptional talent in the United States.
However, whatever the origins of the problems, we have done little to support American workers. Little or no support for real job training (including traditional apprenticeships), limited support for college degrees and little support for innovative small business and R & D.
We have to continue to engage in lively conversation about global trade agreements but with even more energy and commitment find effective strategies to tap into the exceptional talent in the United States.
1
The flow of jobs to the low cost source of labor, just as water flows to the lowest accessible point, is a force of our nature if not of Mother Nature. When "good jobs" were plentiful in America, it was because there were levies at our borders. It was too costly to send them elsewhere when there was no where that had the infrastructure, communications, educated labor force or transport means to make it profitable. Not so any longer.
We rage against trade, we wage against hurricanes too but to no avail. Better that we prepare to weather these forces. Build a storm shelter, get an education, get to where the flow is going.
We rage against trade, we wage against hurricanes too but to no avail. Better that we prepare to weather these forces. Build a storm shelter, get an education, get to where the flow is going.
1
Yes, trade is being used as a scapegoat for almost anything that appears to be economic strain. Unfortunately, both parties are playing into this narrative, because politically, it is too difficult to communicate the actual root producers of current economic conditions. Most of the electorate has a short attention span, and a good story, with an easily identifiable "bad guy" is just easier to communicate to the masses than educating them on how the economy actually works.
Were it not for the "Bernie or Busters" on the democratic side, Hillary would not be communicating an anti-trade message. She is still trying to win this constituency, so the TPP must be demonized.
The real problems that face those most affected by any economic malaise are the result of a congress that has worked to cause such harm as: obstruct any legislation, such as an increase of infrastructure or R&D investment; silly political shenanigans such as the "debt ceiling" debate or the "sequester"; and a lack of support of both primary and higher education initiatives, that would help those most affected by current economic conditions, and help offer them employment that would sustain them into the future. Guess what party is to blame for this??
Hillary's economic message needs to drop the TPP strawman, and place blame where it belongs: Square on the obstructionist, delusional, anti-science, anti-education, anti-reason, Republican congress. Period.
Were it not for the "Bernie or Busters" on the democratic side, Hillary would not be communicating an anti-trade message. She is still trying to win this constituency, so the TPP must be demonized.
The real problems that face those most affected by any economic malaise are the result of a congress that has worked to cause such harm as: obstruct any legislation, such as an increase of infrastructure or R&D investment; silly political shenanigans such as the "debt ceiling" debate or the "sequester"; and a lack of support of both primary and higher education initiatives, that would help those most affected by current economic conditions, and help offer them employment that would sustain them into the future. Guess what party is to blame for this??
Hillary's economic message needs to drop the TPP strawman, and place blame where it belongs: Square on the obstructionist, delusional, anti-science, anti-education, anti-reason, Republican congress. Period.
The business elite use "free trade" to increase already obscene accumulation of wealth; the political elite use "free trade" to pander to the business elite who fund them and employ them post-government "service." Meanwhile, the population gets cheap plastic junk that destroys the planet, while China gets our industrial and military secrets, which our supine government, in thrall to the "free traders" feeding at the trough, refuses to put an end to. Our cash flowing in one direction has built up a military that brutally oppresses their own people (see Tienanmen Square and Tibet) and now terrorizes all of Asia (see claims for the South China Sea). Meanwhile, our middle class, a prerequisite for a stable society, has been hollowed out to the point that many see heroin as the solution to their pain. And the plutocrats press for MORE free trade, MORE immigration, while record numbers of citizens have just dropped out of the workforce and off the radar screen. The current election cycle may horrify the "establishment," but it was preordained by their selfish, entitled, bought-and-paid-for politics.
3
The problem is when Neoliberal apologists invoke the "trade" card in defense of free-market measures that role back labor and environmental protections while consolidating corporate monopoly power in ways that tie the hands of nation-states. That meshes with Establishment Democrats' hope that remaking the economy and society to serve corporate interests will conveniently yield trickle-down benefits to the bottom 90%. This model doesn't work, partly because there are winners and losers from trade per se, partly because markets and capitalism work best in the context of a mixed economy where the government is playing a watchdog role concerned with promoting competition, addressing market failures, and providing public goods.
3
It seems to me that trade and the agreements that regulate it, like most issues to be dealt with on a national and international level, is far more complex than Trump would have us believe. If so, it is alarming that Trump's appeal to many is based on his overly simplistic approach to problems. In his world, every problem has a simple solution capable of expression in one or two formulaic statements. His fund of knowledge, temperament, and lack of analytical skill is better suited to being a reality star. Hopefully he will return to his true calling soon.
2
This editorial is so dishonest in its superficiality, it's ignoring of facts, it is astonishing. Of course trade is not the lone issue in the betrayal of the American worker but it is the major culprit. In an intelligent informed discussion one would go back forty years. Maybe begin with the corporate selling out of the American steel industry. But sticking to the NYTs snapshot format the Editorial Board could have at least laid out a tiny bit of hard information, but who cares about facts these days when fluff will do just fine. This editorial has not one factual item to support its defense of TTP. This is who the Times is today, socialy liberal in a zero real investment/commitment way while underneath it is a purely neoliberal status quo perpetuating, and hiding its class allegiance to the gravy train those at the top of the economic ladder enjoy. Must be nice supporting teenage surgical sex change operations while pretending the selling out of American citizens constitutional guarantees in favor of multi nationals is a good idea. In case no one's noticed the number of giant multinational corporations controlling regular peoples lives is decreasing rapidly. Prepare for a world where you no longer have any voice at all. If we have any choice at all It will be about AT and T or Verizon, not really a choice, is it. Do readers understand that a small number of people virtually control all the financial bottle necks and have erected toll booths at every one of them.
7
Having personally worked with and witnessed the dismantling of American manufacturing for 50 years, it is clear that factories closed and millions of jobs went offshore for no better reason than exploitation of foreign labor and environment. If automation took the jobs, there would be robots working in those abandoned factories - they aren't. If productivity took the jobs, there would be fewer workers in those abandoned factories - they aren't. A quick trip to the mall and a look at our persistent trade deficits confirms we make almost nothing in this country. Academic drivel, such as this column, fuels the outrage of our working class who are the "losers" in the globalization game. Trade deals have ignored labor for decades and it is finally coming home to roost.
8
A mom & pop closes shortly after the Walmart opened. They have been put out of business by global labor arbitrage and other productivity miracles of corporitization, which then funnels the tiny profit margins to a few on Manhattan, in San Fransisco, and disemploys the mom & pops, forcing them to become greeters at $7 an hour while collecting food stamps.
Intellectuals employed by K-Street float ideas like training out of work coal miners to become Python and Java programmers, just as cognitive and genetic ai comes online soon making human coders obsolete, while discovering more un-tapped productivity and cutting formerly middle-class to funnel more meager margins to a few on Manhattan and in San Fransisco.
Perhaps someday, 'Manhattan' and 'San Fransisco' will build walls and employ Blackwater soldiers to keep the rabble and unwashed out.
At some point, to a few, the money is no longer the scoreboard, but much more dangerously, the currency of the elite becomes dignitas and power. History has shown that decadence like that eventually leads to fratricide, the guillotine and collapse.
I wonder and marvel at the fictional post-scarcity world of Star Trek, and hope it comes before the disaster that is in our greedy genetic heritage.
Intellectuals employed by K-Street float ideas like training out of work coal miners to become Python and Java programmers, just as cognitive and genetic ai comes online soon making human coders obsolete, while discovering more un-tapped productivity and cutting formerly middle-class to funnel more meager margins to a few on Manhattan and in San Fransisco.
Perhaps someday, 'Manhattan' and 'San Fransisco' will build walls and employ Blackwater soldiers to keep the rabble and unwashed out.
At some point, to a few, the money is no longer the scoreboard, but much more dangerously, the currency of the elite becomes dignitas and power. History has shown that decadence like that eventually leads to fratricide, the guillotine and collapse.
I wonder and marvel at the fictional post-scarcity world of Star Trek, and hope it comes before the disaster that is in our greedy genetic heritage.
4
Nation states enter into trade agreements based upon their perceived unique relative mutual socioeconomic political educational advantages and disadvantages over time. No nation is at the same stage as another. Technological, scientific, ecological and demographic factors have no trade favorites nor foes. Without compromise and negotiation there can be no trade. Trade is not a zero-sum game.
American economic and tax policies provide incentives to send our money and jobs overseas. Our tax code gives deductions, credits and lower tax rates but only for certain industries, sources of income, business entity structures, transactions, contracts and securities favored by special interests lobbyists. American business regulatory rules are written by partisan insiders.
Goods and services and labor and funds are not the most important trade items. Ideas reflected in technological and scientific innovation are the ultimate trade item. Patents and trade secrets create jobs. Education is the key beneficial "business" base. No nation has a monopoly of ideas.
American economic and tax policies provide incentives to send our money and jobs overseas. Our tax code gives deductions, credits and lower tax rates but only for certain industries, sources of income, business entity structures, transactions, contracts and securities favored by special interests lobbyists. American business regulatory rules are written by partisan insiders.
Goods and services and labor and funds are not the most important trade items. Ideas reflected in technological and scientific innovation are the ultimate trade item. Patents and trade secrets create jobs. Education is the key beneficial "business" base. No nation has a monopoly of ideas.
3
What the corporate community wants is not "free" trade but trade rigged to their own advantage. Even when their companies are profitable, they shut down U.S. plants and move jobs overseas. They want the right to destroy domestic agriculture in developing countries by dumping surplus American agricultural products. They seek out corrupt countries, where governments will overlook violations of what meager environmental and health laws the host country has if the proper officials are bribed. They count on corrupt governments to suppress any labor movements that arise. If they find an even cheaper, more corrupt country, they blithely pick up and move.
Then they have the nerve to tell those of us who want fair trade that we are "hindering the progress of developing countries."
In fact, the success stories of development have all maintained strict control over their own economies, demanded technology transfers and training in technology and management for their own people, and invested heavily in education, health, and infrastructure.
"Free" trade types tout the growing middle classes of India and China, but they are just single-digit percentages of those huge populations. This very "prosperity" has actually made life worse for the poorest in those countries, with rising prices, stagnant incomes, and no social safety net.
Then they have the nerve to tell those of us who want fair trade that we are "hindering the progress of developing countries."
In fact, the success stories of development have all maintained strict control over their own economies, demanded technology transfers and training in technology and management for their own people, and invested heavily in education, health, and infrastructure.
"Free" trade types tout the growing middle classes of India and China, but they are just single-digit percentages of those huge populations. This very "prosperity" has actually made life worse for the poorest in those countries, with rising prices, stagnant incomes, and no social safety net.
9
This is the kind of blindness that has led to Trump and will lead to worse.
The issue is not jobs. It is wages. The working class is not nativist. Polls show they generally like Mexicans. They understand that excessive immigration produces low wages. And if the Trump working class is nativist, so surely are the large numbers of workers who supported Bernie. The issue is wages.
The white workers are not uneducated. They understand their interests perfectly well. The blacks and Latinos who voted for Hillary instead of Bernie were, by any measure, literally more uneducated. And, in fact, they don't understand that their interests were in supporting Bernie.
By insulting white workers in a racist manner as uneducated rednecks and trailer trash (the linguistic equivalent of the N word), you show you really are the voice of Wall Street and you drive them to people like Trump.
Robert Reich among many others has it right. Scandinavia is totally integrated into the world economy, but it ensures that part of the profits from outsourcing and trade go to the broader population through social welfare measures. Its people are not against trade. 72% of them do not think their countries are on the wrong track.
It is time to have a debate on the pages of the Times. Supplement Krugman, who has disgraced himself this year as a liberal, with Reich or Stiglitz.
The issue is not jobs. It is wages. The working class is not nativist. Polls show they generally like Mexicans. They understand that excessive immigration produces low wages. And if the Trump working class is nativist, so surely are the large numbers of workers who supported Bernie. The issue is wages.
The white workers are not uneducated. They understand their interests perfectly well. The blacks and Latinos who voted for Hillary instead of Bernie were, by any measure, literally more uneducated. And, in fact, they don't understand that their interests were in supporting Bernie.
By insulting white workers in a racist manner as uneducated rednecks and trailer trash (the linguistic equivalent of the N word), you show you really are the voice of Wall Street and you drive them to people like Trump.
Robert Reich among many others has it right. Scandinavia is totally integrated into the world economy, but it ensures that part of the profits from outsourcing and trade go to the broader population through social welfare measures. Its people are not against trade. 72% of them do not think their countries are on the wrong track.
It is time to have a debate on the pages of the Times. Supplement Krugman, who has disgraced himself this year as a liberal, with Reich or Stiglitz.
10
"AMY GOODMAN: In Part 1 of our conversation, we talked about the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that President Obama has really championed. What would—what grade, as a college professor, would you give President Obama, who actually went to Columbia University, where you’re a professor, when it comes to these issues? You’ve called the trade deal a "charade."
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, unfortunately, you know, he’s done some things that—he did not support some of the basic reforms in the financial sector that I think were needed. TPP, I think, is a very big mistake. On the other—
AMY GOODMAN: It means corporations control trade, as opposed to democratic societies and their governments?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Exactly, and particularly as we move away from lowering tariffs, which is what the old trade deals—these are about regulations. And yes, regulations maybe have—so many regulations have to be harmonized, they have to be changed. But you can’t leave that up to corporations. And with a changing world, you can’t lock in the current regulatory structure, which is what TPP attempts to do. So—
AMY GOODMAN: For people who don’t understand TPP, explain who makes the decisions around these global trade rules. This will control what? Forty percent of the global economy?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. And the irony is that the president came out and said, "This is about who makes the trade rules—China or the United States?"
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, unfortunately, you know, he’s done some things that—he did not support some of the basic reforms in the financial sector that I think were needed. TPP, I think, is a very big mistake. On the other—
AMY GOODMAN: It means corporations control trade, as opposed to democratic societies and their governments?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Exactly, and particularly as we move away from lowering tariffs, which is what the old trade deals—these are about regulations. And yes, regulations maybe have—so many regulations have to be harmonized, they have to be changed. But you can’t leave that up to corporations. And with a changing world, you can’t lock in the current regulatory structure, which is what TPP attempts to do. So—
AMY GOODMAN: For people who don’t understand TPP, explain who makes the decisions around these global trade rules. This will control what? Forty percent of the global economy?
JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Yeah. And the irony is that the president came out and said, "This is about who makes the trade rules—China or the United States?"
12
Trade in and off itself is a good thing, it interconnects nations and makes hostilities between them less possible. We trade what we have to offer with what other countries have that we may not. The objections that people have to trade has much more to do with the uprooting of company production and all the jobs that go with them and shipping them off to substandard labor wages, with no safety or environmental controls, with factories built by the government of those countries creating an unfair competitive advantage. There should be a penalty for US companies that leave that can be used to retrain their workers and support them until they become re-employed that goes beyond the usual 6 months of unemployment insurance. There should be some kind of an incentive, or tax credit for those who come back or stay.
Companies should be aware also in dealing with foreign nations for their production that those nations can seize or close their operations without notice with little recourse for the company to reclaim its proprietary technology or designs.
Meanwhile, Trump's claims of bringing back what are surely obsolete jobs to this country are pure fantasy. The factories are largely gone, torn down, re-purposed, made into fancy condos and the cost of rebuilding them astronomical. We need to focus on new types of jobs and better pay for the jobs we have of selling the goods that are now made so cheaply.
Companies should be aware also in dealing with foreign nations for their production that those nations can seize or close their operations without notice with little recourse for the company to reclaim its proprietary technology or designs.
Meanwhile, Trump's claims of bringing back what are surely obsolete jobs to this country are pure fantasy. The factories are largely gone, torn down, re-purposed, made into fancy condos and the cost of rebuilding them astronomical. We need to focus on new types of jobs and better pay for the jobs we have of selling the goods that are now made so cheaply.
5
There are no "obsolete" jobs, standards in foreign countries are not really our government's business. And of course almost no products are of poor quality any more nobody will buy them. Now your "new" jobs are a good question, how about maintaining productive equipment in our country to build those things we purchase?
2
This strikes me as a strange editorial that argues that trade is not necessarily bad, then outlines many ways current trade deals have hurt Americans. If trade deals hurt Americans, as in the 99 percent of us, I would say it's safe to call them bad. Also, I agree with the commenter who decried the loss of quality goods. I concur: I don't consider low cost the be all and end all. Let's make stuff in America, make it at high quality for high wages, and make it to last so we're not populating landfills. Then the world will come to us, as they do to the Swiss for precision.
7
I don't think most Sanders supporters and maybe even not all Trump supporters are against international trade. What we're against is when all the benefits of that trade, such as increased corporate profits, go to the senior management of those corporations and other very wealthy people. They have very large salaries, big bonuses and other perks, while they say there's no money for raises for the actual workers and then proceed to lay off those workers and replace them with either foreign workers or foreign consultants living here (H1B visa abuse).
The elites and their journalists don't seem to be able to distinguish between free trade where none of the benefits go to the workers and fair trade where at least some of the benefits go to the workers.
The elites and their journalists don't seem to be able to distinguish between free trade where none of the benefits go to the workers and fair trade where at least some of the benefits go to the workers.
9
Capital always seeks to reduce wages and labor always seeks to increase them. Want to know why wage growth is so slow? Because capital has the ability to keep them low. No need to rely on anecdotal stories; just look at corporate profits over the last decade. They may fluctuate quarter to quarter but they're as high as they've ever been.
Manufacturing jobs - particularly in the three decades after WWII - paid well because workers were unionized and had the ability to stop production to achieve their goals. Unions need to expand to trade/retail and other service sectors if we're ever going to stem the tide of income inequality.
Manufacturing jobs - particularly in the three decades after WWII - paid well because workers were unionized and had the ability to stop production to achieve their goals. Unions need to expand to trade/retail and other service sectors if we're ever going to stem the tide of income inequality.
6
Unions can keep wages high here, but when the jobs move abroad, there are no jobs and no wages either. So unions have clout only so long as the jobs remain in the US. That is a dynamic situation - the jobs will leave, and new jobs have to be created.
The question then is, while the jobs are here, can the unions force management to prepare labor and prepare new jobs as the old ones disappear? I don't think so, because the time needed to prepare for future employment is far longer than the time needed to move today's jobs offshore.
A washing machine business is not suited to training its employees for jobs as psychiatric counselors or investment advisors when their washing-machine jobs go off shore. There's the rub.
The question then is, while the jobs are here, can the unions force management to prepare labor and prepare new jobs as the old ones disappear? I don't think so, because the time needed to prepare for future employment is far longer than the time needed to move today's jobs offshore.
A washing machine business is not suited to training its employees for jobs as psychiatric counselors or investment advisors when their washing-machine jobs go off shore. There's the rub.
2
So-called "free trade" has the support of Wall Street and large U.S. corporations.
This is because U.S. corporations can ship U.S. jobs overseas to places like Communist China, where workers make shoddy goods cheaply in sweat shop conditions under a dictatorship where workers have no rights nor do companies like Apple have to adhere to environmental or health and safety laws.
This is why most politicians from both parties, as well as Donald Trump, have supported or taken advantage of "free trade."
This is because U.S. corporations can ship U.S. jobs overseas to places like Communist China, where workers make shoddy goods cheaply in sweat shop conditions under a dictatorship where workers have no rights nor do companies like Apple have to adhere to environmental or health and safety laws.
This is why most politicians from both parties, as well as Donald Trump, have supported or taken advantage of "free trade."
2
The New York Times blames automation for job losses. They're conflating separate issues.
Informed people are angry about the enrichment of CEOs and boards while skilled manufacturing jobs, IT jobs, and many skilled back office jobs are sent overseas. This is not happening to a similar degree in Germany or indeed in much of Europe. The elite in U.S. appears to have zero patriotism. Instead, Congress and the very wealthy subscribe to a Darwinian, unfettered capitalism that rewards them for strip mining U.S. expertise and know-how. It's stripped and sent overseas (training often performed by the U.S. workers, whether or not they are kept on). They get rich for creating a small step up in their companies profits but the U.S. as a whole gets poorer.
Automation is not to be feared -- automation is what allows you to keep the jobs related to a particular manufacturing niche, even if those jobs may be fewer! Germany has kept their great jobs and automated. The U.S. less so. Why? See above.
Informed people are angry about the enrichment of CEOs and boards while skilled manufacturing jobs, IT jobs, and many skilled back office jobs are sent overseas. This is not happening to a similar degree in Germany or indeed in much of Europe. The elite in U.S. appears to have zero patriotism. Instead, Congress and the very wealthy subscribe to a Darwinian, unfettered capitalism that rewards them for strip mining U.S. expertise and know-how. It's stripped and sent overseas (training often performed by the U.S. workers, whether or not they are kept on). They get rich for creating a small step up in their companies profits but the U.S. as a whole gets poorer.
Automation is not to be feared -- automation is what allows you to keep the jobs related to a particular manufacturing niche, even if those jobs may be fewer! Germany has kept their great jobs and automated. The U.S. less so. Why? See above.
6
Almost every effect has more than one cause but you would never know it by listening to Donald Trump, who claims, without any substantial or credible proof, that trade agreements are the single cause of most manufacturing job losses. He ignores the fact that technological advances and mechanization have eliminated many jobs.
In fact, the trade industry has created hundreds of thousands of jobs among customs brokers, international freight forwarding, trucking, airfreight and steamship companies. Many of those jobs would be in jeopardy if Trump
became president and hindered the free flow of exports and imports.
It's time for Trump to stop exploiting the issue for cheap political gain and show us the facts, just the facts.
In fact, the trade industry has created hundreds of thousands of jobs among customs brokers, international freight forwarding, trucking, airfreight and steamship companies. Many of those jobs would be in jeopardy if Trump
became president and hindered the free flow of exports and imports.
It's time for Trump to stop exploiting the issue for cheap political gain and show us the facts, just the facts.
We've exported our manufacturing expertise. That was a huge mistake.
I'm 66 years old, a retired manufacturing engineer. I know how to make things. I know all the grimy details about the manufacturing processes used to build electronic components.
Now that we've exported those processes to Asia, the younger people in America have not learned those processes. The Chinese kids have taken over.
Just imagine that we get into a war with China. We would need to buy the components for our defense systems from them. How would that work?
I'm 66 years old, a retired manufacturing engineer. I know how to make things. I know all the grimy details about the manufacturing processes used to build electronic components.
Now that we've exported those processes to Asia, the younger people in America have not learned those processes. The Chinese kids have taken over.
Just imagine that we get into a war with China. We would need to buy the components for our defense systems from them. How would that work?
10
What can I say? You really have it wrong on this one. The basic truth is that fair trade is not fair trade. All that our trade deals provide is a platform for large corporation to seek out and exploit labor, the environment and political corruption. The economic reality today is not the same as in way 1916 when corporations did have somewhat of a national identity. Today these corporation operate like locus moving from one country to the next in order to maximize profit while laying waste to the host. Just look at what NAFTA has done to the industrial base of this country and the damage it has done to Mexico. Yeah, everybody gets cheaper TV's to watch while they look for a job above minimum wage.
8
Your editorial mentions imports, but says nothing about companies that close down here and open in other countries following lower wages. Such companies should be required to pay the cost of retraining workers they lay off and supporting them for at least a year. We with our taxes wind up doing so. If we do not require this of these companies then they should pay duties on the products they attempt to send back to this country.
But this will never happen as these huge companies control the terms of trade deals and governments every where.
But this will never happen as these huge companies control the terms of trade deals and governments every where.
4
Well all I know is the direct experience of trying to get a financial services subsidiary running in China, per the WTO accession agreements. Pretty much a one way street. US firms bent over backwards to help Chinese 'partners" set up operations in the US--the reciprocal was a constant rope-a-dope that lasted for years, theft of IP and business methods, and a constant stream of "consultants" that demanded shares of JVs for no apparent value add. In fact, these were simply the bagmen for government officials. Sorry if that harshes somebody rainbow unicorn view of free trade. And frankly the Bush and Obama administrations were functionally useless. The only difference was that the Bushies would acknowledge we were getting hosed. Under Obama, they really thought everything was great. So caveat emptor folks.
7
I have not read the TPP, but some of the clauses that have been put forth, I object to.
The ability of Monsanto and others to sue in a closed court for damages to their bottom line. If Germany wants to ban Glycophytes, for example, Monsanto and Beyer would be allowed to sue for loss of revenues, even though Germany would be protecting the environment. Then the suit would be brought to a world court, not a nation's court.
Arbitration is not always just and fair. It usually hurt people in favor of the profits made by the big corporations. This appears to be the same thing.
The ability of Monsanto and others to sue in a closed court for damages to their bottom line. If Germany wants to ban Glycophytes, for example, Monsanto and Beyer would be allowed to sue for loss of revenues, even though Germany would be protecting the environment. Then the suit would be brought to a world court, not a nation's court.
Arbitration is not always just and fair. It usually hurt people in favor of the profits made by the big corporations. This appears to be the same thing.
12
Trade creates jobs, if rich countries move up the value chain and emerging economies pick up industries that are no longer profitable in the developed world. This has worked very well for countries like Germany and China. It has not worked for the U.S., because foolish politicians have written off non-college tertiary education. This has left American workers no better qualified than their Mexican counterparts, which is why most companies moved their production south of the border, where wages are lower and where NAFTA trade rules apply.
In a nutshell, free trade is great for countries that have a carefully thought-through industrial policy like Germany, South Korea and Japan. Yet, countries run by ideologically blind free-marketers will suffer and be suckers to pragmatists who know what they are doing and carefully plan ahead.
In a nutshell, free trade is great for countries that have a carefully thought-through industrial policy like Germany, South Korea and Japan. Yet, countries run by ideologically blind free-marketers will suffer and be suckers to pragmatists who know what they are doing and carefully plan ahead.
4
I do not think that trade is the issue. I believe that the way our capitalism in the US has created companies that daily look at their share value and are worried only about the next quarter. We need trade, this is how Boeing sells planes overseas, this is how our technology companies sell their goods, this is how many of our companies earn money overseas. In return this also creates jobs right here. I remember a company like MCI, which was bought by Worldcom and instead of selling their services they run their daily business looking how to make the quarter figures to create shareholder value. Trade is an old concept: I give you something i produce, you give something you produce. Good concept, however out of bounce. If China corrupts is currency, their stuff is getting cheaper and we pay more, creating an imbalance in the trade accounts. Oh yes, and there are the Economists, that teach us every day that we need to sell more, have more growth, make more to create even more shareholder value. Not a winning concept but there it is, hate Trade altogether and blame it for all misery. We have a higher standard of living, our goods cost more because to produce them we will need to spend more. Trade agreements are not bad, they should address imbalances and they should not written in stone and when circumstances change, they need to adopt.
3
TPP is a cynical play to undermine democracy at multiple levels. If this is such a great deal, why wasn't the entire agreement published and debated by both the public and the Congress? WikiLeaks published details of this appalling agreement that, among other things, exposed the fact that parts of the treaty would be kept secret from the public for four years, that big business was deeply involved in drafting the treaty (the treaty citizens can't even see), and that multinational companies could sue the US to protect their profits regardless of our laws in a treaty-specified three-man tribunal that bypasses US laws and courts. Fast Track is just another end-run around democracy. Clearly, a treated too flawed to be debated (or even read) is too flawed to exist.
18
Another in among line of shallow editorials by the NYT. Your attempt to try and turn a serious economic discussion into yet another anti Trump diatribe is rather transparent. Misstatements in the editorial are rampant.
- It was not Trump that introduced trade into the 2016 campaign, but rather Sanders as part of his rigged economy rant. He forced Clinton into an about face on a topic where she has been generally on the side of free trade. Now she comp,aims abut two major agreements her husband approved, Nafta and the introduction of China into WTO. Nafta? Canada had higher duties than the US before it, and they suffered more. That only leaves poor Mexico as a scapegoat. Trump followed Bernie's lead on the Republican side in his own version of the rigged economy.
- how does free trade allow Apple to sell more products overseas when it makes those products overseas in the first place? iPhones are all made in China, not the US, and they account for two thirds of Apple's profits. Are any of their PCs and iPads made here either?
- It was not Trump that introduced trade into the 2016 campaign, but rather Sanders as part of his rigged economy rant. He forced Clinton into an about face on a topic where she has been generally on the side of free trade. Now she comp,aims abut two major agreements her husband approved, Nafta and the introduction of China into WTO. Nafta? Canada had higher duties than the US before it, and they suffered more. That only leaves poor Mexico as a scapegoat. Trump followed Bernie's lead on the Republican side in his own version of the rigged economy.
- how does free trade allow Apple to sell more products overseas when it makes those products overseas in the first place? iPhones are all made in China, not the US, and they account for two thirds of Apple's profits. Are any of their PCs and iPads made here either?
5
There is much confusion about the balance of trade impact of iPhones.
A current iPhone sells for roughly $750. Parts, mostly but not all non-US, cost about $220 based on teardown studies. Labor for assembly (which accounts for most of the Chinese content of an iPhone) is usually estimated around $25. The rest, about $500, goes partly to distribution but mostly to Apple for development and profits. So about 2/3's of what you pay for an iPhone actually stays in the US or at least stays with a mostly-US-owned company; when that same phone is sold outside the US it generates a very positive, albeit possibly delayed, inflow for the US balance of trade.
A current iPhone sells for roughly $750. Parts, mostly but not all non-US, cost about $220 based on teardown studies. Labor for assembly (which accounts for most of the Chinese content of an iPhone) is usually estimated around $25. The rest, about $500, goes partly to distribution but mostly to Apple for development and profits. So about 2/3's of what you pay for an iPhone actually stays in the US or at least stays with a mostly-US-owned company; when that same phone is sold outside the US it generates a very positive, albeit possibly delayed, inflow for the US balance of trade.
"While trade is not the cause of all or even much of the wage stagnation or increased income inequality in the past several decades"
This is a ridiculous claim that is not supported by facts. American business and American workers play by rules that protect the environment, the workers, and businesses. Telling American workers and businesses that they should compete with foreign operations that only care about money has been an unmitigated disaster. FAIR trade would have allowed for the expansion of markets and increased opportunity for poor countries while spreading American values around the world. Too bad that greed trumps all.
This is a ridiculous claim that is not supported by facts. American business and American workers play by rules that protect the environment, the workers, and businesses. Telling American workers and businesses that they should compete with foreign operations that only care about money has been an unmitigated disaster. FAIR trade would have allowed for the expansion of markets and increased opportunity for poor countries while spreading American values around the world. Too bad that greed trumps all.
8
Our FTAs have included provisions obliging each party to effectively enforce their environmental laws since the Jordan FTA negotiated in the late 90's and ratified in 2001. If you count side agreements, it started even earlier with NAFTA and the NAAEC.
Also, implying that foreign corporations only care about profits while American business somehow have something more noble in mind is willfully ignorant. Corporations are always in pursuit of profits; it's by design in their charters. Competition between these firms is good - it's made the United States a powerhouse in innovation.
I don't get the connection between fair trade an american values, either. If anything, wouldn't "fair trade" involve an equal distribution of values from the trading partners? It honestly sounds more like you're just throwing around senseless rhetoric with no basis in reality or reason.
Also, implying that foreign corporations only care about profits while American business somehow have something more noble in mind is willfully ignorant. Corporations are always in pursuit of profits; it's by design in their charters. Competition between these firms is good - it's made the United States a powerhouse in innovation.
I don't get the connection between fair trade an american values, either. If anything, wouldn't "fair trade" involve an equal distribution of values from the trading partners? It honestly sounds more like you're just throwing around senseless rhetoric with no basis in reality or reason.
Trade destroys jobs in USA when the corporations
make their products in other countries such as China
and Mexico and import for sales here. Apple assembles
phones in China and now exploring India. There are a
large number of companies across the border in Mexico
(Maquiladora) that assemble products and bring back here.
Trade is beneficial. Clothes, shoes, electronics and other
items would cost more if made in USA. Labor is very
expensive. Plumber, electricians, auto mechanic,dentist
and others cost $100/hr. This makes America less
competitive. Even American staple, hamburger, cost
$2.25 in China and $4.50 in US. Trade also is a tool
of foreign policy. If we don't like behavior of some
countries like Russia or Iran, we can impose trade
sanctions to penalize. This leverage will be lost.Products
with hefty profit margin, such as smartphones, can be
made here despite astronomical labor cost.Trump or
Clinton need to go beyond rhetoric and spell out
the specific measures to keep jobs here-incentives.
Threats which Trump offers will not work.
make their products in other countries such as China
and Mexico and import for sales here. Apple assembles
phones in China and now exploring India. There are a
large number of companies across the border in Mexico
(Maquiladora) that assemble products and bring back here.
Trade is beneficial. Clothes, shoes, electronics and other
items would cost more if made in USA. Labor is very
expensive. Plumber, electricians, auto mechanic,dentist
and others cost $100/hr. This makes America less
competitive. Even American staple, hamburger, cost
$2.25 in China and $4.50 in US. Trade also is a tool
of foreign policy. If we don't like behavior of some
countries like Russia or Iran, we can impose trade
sanctions to penalize. This leverage will be lost.Products
with hefty profit margin, such as smartphones, can be
made here despite astronomical labor cost.Trump or
Clinton need to go beyond rhetoric and spell out
the specific measures to keep jobs here-incentives.
Threats which Trump offers will not work.
2
As I indicated in an earlier comment, I believe that technological innovation is the real reason for global economic weakness. New technology, including software, continues to relentless "improve productivity" and eliminate the need for human labor. A possible partial solution to this inevitability is to tax new technology commensurate with its improvement in productivity (a euphemism for labor destruction). The greater the improvement in productivity, the higher the tax levied, the proceeds of which should be "redistributed" to those who lost their jobs on the "altar of progress".
4
Technology is capital investment. The tax code subsidizes capital investment. Labor is taxed and regulated more than just about anything else, which is part of the reason people cannot compete with technology on a cost basis.
8
If its trade it's not free & if its free its not trade.
If the goal were Fair Trade, not exploitative, earth-killing abuse for planned-obsolescent waste, trade wouldn't be so damaging.
But manipulating fair commerce as an artificial means to prop up obsolete american manufacturing jobs that are themselves some relic of a post-ww2 production boom hardly seems wholesome.
Abusive industrial outsourcing to increase corporate profits is not the answer.
If products are not sustainably produced by living-wage-earning happy workers then they shouldn't be marketed, sold or purchased.
If the goal were Fair Trade, not exploitative, earth-killing abuse for planned-obsolescent waste, trade wouldn't be so damaging.
But manipulating fair commerce as an artificial means to prop up obsolete american manufacturing jobs that are themselves some relic of a post-ww2 production boom hardly seems wholesome.
Abusive industrial outsourcing to increase corporate profits is not the answer.
If products are not sustainably produced by living-wage-earning happy workers then they shouldn't be marketed, sold or purchased.
24
Exactly! Built-in obsolescence and artificial scarcity are exactly what's propping-up our global monetary-system and thus our "trade deals."
2
If companies, large and small, can't pay a living wage, they don't have any right to be in business. Taking advantage of others, to enrich yourself is uncommonly wrong.
2
Trade isn't the main force destroying good jobs? It may not look that way from the NYT editorial offices, but out here in the small Midwestern towns where I and my family live, it's as plain as day. The factory that was the largest employer in town, providing income and keeping people in town, where they spent that income at other local businesses, is now gone. It didn't reduce employment by automating; it closed. The things it manufactured are now manufactured overseas. We are left with the abandoned ruin, an eyesore and reminder of our former lifeblood, as one by one, the lights have gone out at our local hardware, drugstore, and grocery stores. They couldn't compete with the cut-rate prices of the big box stores on the outskirts of town, that sell everything at "always the low price." You might not appreciate the shoddy quality of a lot of the merchandise, but that's what you're buying now, because it's all that's available here. And it's all made in foreign countries, with questionable materials and processes we can't observe or control, by workers who are paid far less than the minimum wage here. Economists may have their theories about why we've lost our jobs, but the evidence we're staring at says it's the trade agreements.
192
I bought something ten years ago and found that it was made in my local community. I probably would have made the purchase anyway even if it was a little bit more expensive. A year later I saw that the company was closing and thirty workers would be jobless. This had little to do with the typical excuses of high labor costs or declining demand. It was because the aging business owner who founded the company sold to another larger company that was then bought by a Chinese company.
The book Boom, Bust, Exodus: The Rust Belt, the Maquilas, and a Tale of Two Cities describes a similar problem. A viable company, Maytag, is destroyed on purpose by it's management for the benefit of themselves and their stockholders. The point of trade agreements is that companies making products in the US can sell products easily to other countries and vice versa. Companies manufacturing products in the US that use these agreements to build factories in other countries and then import their products back to the US are involved in an obvious corruption of the spirit of these agreements and the people responsible for making these decisions deserve time in prison. This is not the bill-of-goods the American people were sold when these agreements were signed.
The book Boom, Bust, Exodus: The Rust Belt, the Maquilas, and a Tale of Two Cities describes a similar problem. A viable company, Maytag, is destroyed on purpose by it's management for the benefit of themselves and their stockholders. The point of trade agreements is that companies making products in the US can sell products easily to other countries and vice versa. Companies manufacturing products in the US that use these agreements to build factories in other countries and then import their products back to the US are involved in an obvious corruption of the spirit of these agreements and the people responsible for making these decisions deserve time in prison. This is not the bill-of-goods the American people were sold when these agreements were signed.
5
The rage against trade is not as misdirected as the editorial board suggests. The problem with our trade policies is that we have never had the political will to insist on proper support for the American "losers" that the process generates. Displaced American manufacturing workers cannot pay their bills by raising the standard of living of other countries.
The backlash against our free trade policies would be minimal if our representatives were capable of crafting sensible policies that integrated the cost of "off-shoring" of jobs. The current state of our political discourse seems to exacerbate the anger by reminding us that the probability that our representatives being able to work together to do anything effective is minimal.
I'm not sure what bearing the loss of jobs due to increased automation has on trade policies. It would be interesting to see the data comparing the loss of jobs due to exportation to low wage regions versus losses of jobs due to American based manufacturers increasing automation at American based locations. The notion that automation at American factories has a much bigger role than "off-shoring" does not ring true.
If our representatives do not stop acting like petulant children and come together to address this issue like adults the rage will continue.
The backlash against our free trade policies would be minimal if our representatives were capable of crafting sensible policies that integrated the cost of "off-shoring" of jobs. The current state of our political discourse seems to exacerbate the anger by reminding us that the probability that our representatives being able to work together to do anything effective is minimal.
I'm not sure what bearing the loss of jobs due to increased automation has on trade policies. It would be interesting to see the data comparing the loss of jobs due to exportation to low wage regions versus losses of jobs due to American based manufacturers increasing automation at American based locations. The notion that automation at American factories has a much bigger role than "off-shoring" does not ring true.
If our representatives do not stop acting like petulant children and come together to address this issue like adults the rage will continue.
19
On has to be a totally blind ideologu to not see that free trade has destroyed the middle class in the USA. It may have raised the lowest level standards of living in other parts of the world, and to some fanatical indivduals that justifies reducing Americans standard of living. The wealthy 2% have totally isolated themselves form any bad effects and are raking in more billions exploiting the cheap labor of the world. They continue to push for more population growth, because you can never nave enough cheap labor and to hell with overpopulation and environmental effects, we are rich and want to enjoy our wealth now.
4
"Many economists believe that automation has had a much bigger impact." Instead of beliefs, we need to see facts. We read articles in the NYT about factories moving to other countries (Carrier to Mexico is one) for wage arbitrage. We are surrounded by products made in every country but the US. So, let's have some facts about specifically what companies, what factories, and what products are no longer manufactured by people here, but are manufactured via automation in the USA.
Until we see facts, the automation argument is just another attempt to support unfair trade.
Until we see facts, the automation argument is just another attempt to support unfair trade.
6
It's really not about trade. It's all about the taxes. It's past time to take corporate exploitation of trade agreements out of the equation.
How do you do that. Start with taking those profits away in the form of taxes.
And punish exploitation with even more taxes.
But that's the real pipe dream because the people who do all the exploiting have purchased most of our "elected representatives". Look no further than Senator Sanders to see what happens to the honest and unselfish ones.
How do you do that. Start with taking those profits away in the form of taxes.
And punish exploitation with even more taxes.
But that's the real pipe dream because the people who do all the exploiting have purchased most of our "elected representatives". Look no further than Senator Sanders to see what happens to the honest and unselfish ones.
8
The TPP requires that companies be compensated for environmental protections even before any action has been taken by anybody . The merethought of a regulation requiring clean water, clean air, preservation of habitat, will cost the governments (ie. the people!) that are choosing to save the earth for future generations. This will kill environmental protection. This is just what happened under NAFTA, where no foreign companies were required to adhere to our environmental standards. So profits for corporations were put ahead of jobs, AND ahead of environmental protections.
That is why we don't want TPP. The environment is the matrix. It is the First thing of importance, not something to toss aside as a bargaining point!!!
That is why we don't want TPP. The environment is the matrix. It is the First thing of importance, not something to toss aside as a bargaining point!!!
8
Such comparisons to Germany inevitably ring hollow. Germany operates as one giant export cartel. The US operates like a feudal monarchy whose elite is determined to squeeze as much as it can out of the populace.
Whereas Germany has a generous social safety net and a system for quickly retraining workers so they can make money in new industries, the US off-shores its jobs and then pretends the now-jobless engineers never even existed.
Germans work less than we do, have a greater standard of living, and somehow manage to be safer even while they're inundated with refugees.
Germany carefully manages EU trade policy to keep itself a net exporter. American trade agreements sell out Americans so a handful of executives, bankers, and big investors can make a quick buck.
All the editorial board is doing by making such comparisons is reminding Americans to rage some more.
Whereas Germany has a generous social safety net and a system for quickly retraining workers so they can make money in new industries, the US off-shores its jobs and then pretends the now-jobless engineers never even existed.
Germans work less than we do, have a greater standard of living, and somehow manage to be safer even while they're inundated with refugees.
Germany carefully manages EU trade policy to keep itself a net exporter. American trade agreements sell out Americans so a handful of executives, bankers, and big investors can make a quick buck.
All the editorial board is doing by making such comparisons is reminding Americans to rage some more.
13
Baloney. Trade partnerships such as the tpp fortify the position that we can buy cheaper goods from a country and flood our market place with them and essentially have no use for the creation of and manufacturing of the products here in the u.s.. Level the playing field. Tariff china on its goods heavily. The United States will build innovative, green and worthy products. China can flood our markets with cheap, environmentally unsound and unsafe products with the current and future "trade" agreements.
7
What trade agreement do we have with China?
"Tariff" means "tax to make foreign goods more expensive, artificially". Do you think the American people -- including the so-called "middle class"'are going to want higher prices for cars, TVs, carpets, tools, clothes, you-name-it?
I can tell you what will happen: the "middle class" teacher, construction worker (union or not), farmer and small business owner will say "no". If tariffs pass the less affluent and elderly will need more financial assistance to keep up with inflated costs -- and nobody is going to want to pay taxes for that, either.
The American manufacturing worker has to be trained for the new economy. Wishing that well-paying (not the grammatically incorrect "good-paying" as the unions insist on saying) jobs are coming back for unskilled workers is dreamland. Selling that nonsense to working people is political fraud.
I can tell you what will happen: the "middle class" teacher, construction worker (union or not), farmer and small business owner will say "no". If tariffs pass the less affluent and elderly will need more financial assistance to keep up with inflated costs -- and nobody is going to want to pay taxes for that, either.
The American manufacturing worker has to be trained for the new economy. Wishing that well-paying (not the grammatically incorrect "good-paying" as the unions insist on saying) jobs are coming back for unskilled workers is dreamland. Selling that nonsense to working people is political fraud.
And the solution to reduced benefits from trade isn't more education. Many highly educated people are seeing their jobs outsourced to foreign research scientists, programmers, accountants, etc. because they'll work for far, far less money. The solution is to:
1. Have more fair trade which takes these imbalances in pay, environmental regulations, etc. into account
2. Give some of the benefits of the trade to the workers and not just to the top management.
1. Have more fair trade which takes these imbalances in pay, environmental regulations, etc. into account
2. Give some of the benefits of the trade to the workers and not just to the top management.
9
The key here is the "assistance for workers affected by trade" that the US Congress has so chronically short-circuited, combined with its refusal to invest in physical infrastructure and human capital. The result is a poorer country materially, intellectually and spiritually. If we doubt this, consider our degraded national dialog about policy and politics.
We have always been subjected to stupid statements but the contemporary 24/7 assault of craziness is new. It is not attributable only to Donald Trump and, whatever happens to his particular campaign, it's not going away any time soon, if ever.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
We have always been subjected to stupid statements but the contemporary 24/7 assault of craziness is new. It is not attributable only to Donald Trump and, whatever happens to his particular campaign, it's not going away any time soon, if ever.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
2
Automation? We all lived through the late 90's and we all saw what granting China favored-nation status did to manufacturing. Automation is a result of competition from importers. As firms face cost pressure from bad trade deals, they respond by investing in automation and cutting workers.
Does anyone believe that Hilary will actually do something about bad trade deals? Foreign governments and big businesses have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clintons, either for speeches or to their foundation. The DNC is setting records for special-interest fund-raising. When she is in the White House these groups will have a direct line to Hilary via the secret email server she will set up in her bathroom. Any changes to trade deals will be stopped right there and adoption of the TPP is all but certain.
Does anyone believe that Hilary will actually do something about bad trade deals? Foreign governments and big businesses have given hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clintons, either for speeches or to their foundation. The DNC is setting records for special-interest fund-raising. When she is in the White House these groups will have a direct line to Hilary via the secret email server she will set up in her bathroom. Any changes to trade deals will be stopped right there and adoption of the TPP is all but certain.
4
It seems the majority of Americans do not approve of these trade agreements as currently instituted. Or at the least a very significant minority hates them. Can't one be against a particular agreement and still be for trade? Not according to Big Trade's blowhard cheerleaders.
It's depressing to me that we can't get agreement on repairing the nations infrastructure, or get anywhere reining in the financial sector, cutting 20% credit card interest rates, breaking up the big banks, restoring faith in capitalism and wall street. But we can always pass another trade agreement. As if that is the most important issue facing the country.
It's depressing to me that we can't get agreement on repairing the nations infrastructure, or get anywhere reining in the financial sector, cutting 20% credit card interest rates, breaking up the big banks, restoring faith in capitalism and wall street. But we can always pass another trade agreement. As if that is the most important issue facing the country.
6
The Rage is against Jobs given away to countries where workers earn just a small percentage of what a US worker earns.
But somehow that turned into a Rage against trade?
And the point 'that other industrialized countries like Germany and Japan have also lost manufacturing jobs is also (purposely?) misleading.
The right numbers to look at is the percentage of 'manufacturing' in an economy - where Germany and Japan (still) have nearly a third -(compared to the predominant 'Service' and 'Finance' Industry of the US)
The strong manufacturing base has turned countries like Germany and Japan into the 'Producing Economies' for 'Consuming Economy' like the US and thus produced a lot of depressed and 'raging' workers in the US - who now looking for all the wrong (Trump) solutions.
As all it actually takes is American Job Creators who are willing to accept the challenge of the 'Producing Countries' and produce again jobs in (High Quality) manufacturing.
But somehow that turned into a Rage against trade?
And the point 'that other industrialized countries like Germany and Japan have also lost manufacturing jobs is also (purposely?) misleading.
The right numbers to look at is the percentage of 'manufacturing' in an economy - where Germany and Japan (still) have nearly a third -(compared to the predominant 'Service' and 'Finance' Industry of the US)
The strong manufacturing base has turned countries like Germany and Japan into the 'Producing Economies' for 'Consuming Economy' like the US and thus produced a lot of depressed and 'raging' workers in the US - who now looking for all the wrong (Trump) solutions.
As all it actually takes is American Job Creators who are willing to accept the challenge of the 'Producing Countries' and produce again jobs in (High Quality) manufacturing.
3
The editorial board begins this article with a straw man: no one in the United States is against 'trade' as either a practice or a concept. What some people are against are specific trade policies which disadvantage American workers, encourage the exploitation of low-wage workers overseas, and protect the rights of corporations over the rights of legitimate governments to enact public health legislation.
No one is demanding an end to all foreign economic activity, and suggesting that this is the case is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Instead, people want our trade policy to balance the needs of both businesses and workers a bit better. That's all.
Doesn't sound so scary when it's no longer a straw man, does it?
No one is demanding an end to all foreign economic activity, and suggesting that this is the case is intellectually dishonest in the extreme. Instead, people want our trade policy to balance the needs of both businesses and workers a bit better. That's all.
Doesn't sound so scary when it's no longer a straw man, does it?
13
There is nothing wrong with "free trade". I think most people can agree on that. The question is whether what we are sold as "free trade" really constitutes that and whether we can achieve "truly free AND fair trade".
Unfortunately for Americans and the rest of the world, neither of the two candidates will break from the traditional mold of so-called "free" trade agreements since those agreements are written by lobbyists and inside corporate lawyers, in secret no less.
To think that Mrs.Clinton will stand up to big money and not enforce TPP should it pass in Obama's lame duck session is delusional and for the NYTimes to push the narrative is disingenious or flat out deceiving. Another example of the destruction of the public's faith in politicians and the media alike.
It is frighteningly clear that if you continue down that path, eventually the 99 percent will have no alternative but to express their frustration in the streets, especially after they realise that their union leaders, their black leaders, their hispanic leaders etc. have sold them down the river for coffee and a photo-op at the White House.
Unfortunately for Americans and the rest of the world, neither of the two candidates will break from the traditional mold of so-called "free" trade agreements since those agreements are written by lobbyists and inside corporate lawyers, in secret no less.
To think that Mrs.Clinton will stand up to big money and not enforce TPP should it pass in Obama's lame duck session is delusional and for the NYTimes to push the narrative is disingenious or flat out deceiving. Another example of the destruction of the public's faith in politicians and the media alike.
It is frighteningly clear that if you continue down that path, eventually the 99 percent will have no alternative but to express their frustration in the streets, especially after they realise that their union leaders, their black leaders, their hispanic leaders etc. have sold them down the river for coffee and a photo-op at the White House.
14
The devil is in the details. Trade needs to be carefully crafted to benefit the majority of Americans, and not by some disproven "trickle-down" model. TPP was negotiated by wealthy interests, and not surprisingly it is skewed towards putting money in a small number of pockets. One particular concern is that it emphasizes "intellectual property" on our side, while losing manufacturing of tangible goods overseas. Most people will lose economic ground under this model. The whole treaty needs to be renegotiated in an open, democratic manner.
5
"One particular concern is that it emphasizes "intellectual property" on our side, while losing manufacturing of tangible goods overseas."....Globalization is inevitable and whether we like it or not there is an over abundance of unskilled labor in the world. The bottom line is that we are going to do lose manufactoring jobs with or without trade agreements. Do you want to lose intellectual property too?
We are bogged down by arguments about trade, when what we really need to do is focus on the future and our needs in the world we live in.
The 1% needs to be called upon to support the future of our country to rejuvenate what we call our middle class, another way of saying that we need to stop being myopic and invest in our own future.
We need to pay people a better-than-living-wage for things we need other people for, like caring for our young and old, creating our entertainment, growing food sensibly and sustainably, creating power sustainably, safe computing, safe electronic medical records, we need to support our failing scientific research infrastructure, and much more. We need each other desperately - we must value each other by paying living wages and training our children for the future, not training them for a life in poverty.
The 1% needs to be called upon to support the future of our country to rejuvenate what we call our middle class, another way of saying that we need to stop being myopic and invest in our own future.
We need to pay people a better-than-living-wage for things we need other people for, like caring for our young and old, creating our entertainment, growing food sensibly and sustainably, creating power sustainably, safe computing, safe electronic medical records, we need to support our failing scientific research infrastructure, and much more. We need each other desperately - we must value each other by paying living wages and training our children for the future, not training them for a life in poverty.
3
"But trade has hurt some factories and workers in the United States because they have not been able to compete with foreign businesses that enjoy lower-cost labor ... "
In other words, anger at trade agreements has a valid reason. And candidates legitimately need to discuss it.
Then there is the issue of white collar and professional employees who simply cannot find employment after age 50 because it is being shipped offshore.
Trade agreements may not have made middle class jobs an endangered species, but they most definitely have raised the fear that this is a long-term trend that will afflict upwardly mobile young workers as much if not more than it has affected their elders.
In other words, anger at trade agreements has a valid reason. And candidates legitimately need to discuss it.
Then there is the issue of white collar and professional employees who simply cannot find employment after age 50 because it is being shipped offshore.
Trade agreements may not have made middle class jobs an endangered species, but they most definitely have raised the fear that this is a long-term trend that will afflict upwardly mobile young workers as much if not more than it has affected their elders.
5
Trade agreements were takin under the table because elected Congressional representatives are not objective and narrowly politicized. Open trade keeps the American economy strong and congress could do whatever needed to incentive job security/creation. Factory closings usually relate to State tax bases and the lack of managerial imagination/laziness to remain competitive. Free trade keeps the economy growing however disproportionately from State to State.
Seems like the NYT Editorial Board is in ivory tower la la land. Many other countries do nothing close to what the US does to ensure worker health and safety, or to protect the environment. Many other countries purposefully make it difficult for US and other foreign companies operating within their borders by strictly applying "regulations" designed only to hamper foreign companies' activities. And, on top of all of that, there's the rampant corruption and lack of intellectual property protection (or, worse, government-sponsored IP theft) in many countries (e.g., China), and you've got a playing field that's nothing close to balanced or fair.
The lack of a balanced and fair playing field is the issue. And, as much as I absolutely abhor Trump, he's got it right on this issue.
The lack of a balanced and fair playing field is the issue. And, as much as I absolutely abhor Trump, he's got it right on this issue.
9
The problems lies with exaggerations and politics. The United States is part of huge trading block, the fifty states. Whole industries have moved from one region of the country to others, but there have been programs designed to ameliorate the pain of the shifts. Trade and globalization and technological improvements have all benefited the nation as a whole. That does not mean there have not been losers who have been hurt by the changes. The majority should compensate those harmed by trade deals. Unfortunately Republicans have made all such ideas impossible.
3
Our approach to trade must be: we want to sell items to large economies, and they won't buy if we erect barriers. The trick, then, is to make things they need to buy, in short, to outsmart them.
As for making things in America, one word will suffice: infrastructure. We're letting our bridges, roads, dams, levees, seawalls, and railroads decay into uselessness. Infrastructure not only employs the workers who build it but the workers who make the components for the construction. Here we might be a little more circumspect in our trade: no infrastructure built with components dumped at artificially low prices in our markets.
As for making things in America, one word will suffice: infrastructure. We're letting our bridges, roads, dams, levees, seawalls, and railroads decay into uselessness. Infrastructure not only employs the workers who build it but the workers who make the components for the construction. Here we might be a little more circumspect in our trade: no infrastructure built with components dumped at artificially low prices in our markets.
8
Then the infrastructure-building will have to be done by non-profits or by the government because a for-profit company will use the cheapest labor and the cheapest components in order to squeeze out the most money for shareholders...and of course, the executives that run the company.
1
Somewhere along the line, it became the norm for CEO's and shareholders to get ever increasing shares of the pie. Labor, or production costs must be kept at an ever decreasing minimum in order for that to happen. It's the norm, it's what expected. And those CEO's and Shareholders must pay the lowest possible taxes, if any at all, pushing the tax burden on the working class. Oh and those pesky laborers, well, they don't want to settle for poverty and misery while producing the world's salable goods, and they're starting to get hostile. What's wrong with those people, don't they get it? After all, it's the norm now. It's expected. Next important question: What exactly do we do with the excess population who can't find living wage jobs? I'm sure Trump has some ideas on this. Maybe the NYTimes could have someone do an op/ed on that, instead of pretending it's not an issue that will ultimately roll over this country like a speeding locomotive.
15
My response? The sociopathic narcissism displayed by the current Republican presidential candidate is not an aberration but just an exaggerated version of what passes for normal behavior among corporate bigwigs.
1
Blaming international trade agreements for the woes of American workers is very much like blaming the interstate highway system for your local downtown rush hour traffic. One may have an indirect effect on the other, but shutting it down won't help that much. Middle class Americans have lost their purchasing power primarily because of domestic political choices (weakening of workers unions, lower taxes on the rich, stagnating minimum wage, increased college tuition). It's domestic policy that needs fixing, not international agreements.
110
What do you think helped to ensure stagnating wages and decreasing taxes on the rich? Its those international agreements that have less to do with "trade" and more to do with "investors rights". The international trade agreements definitely need fixing.
1
Instead of blaming free trade for jobloss or lost opportunities, the focus should be on social safety, skill development through education and research , and reskilling as per the requirements of the automation, which might give the much needed competitive advantage to the economy in the fast integrating world market.
1
You want to see a country without trade? Take a look at North Korea. Attractive?
The complaints about trade deals are based on the misperceptions that they cause unskilled,high-paying jobs to leave the country. Wrong. Low wages do that,combined with the profit motive. Growing up in a factory town in the 1970s I saw job after job leave the northeast for...the American South. Now they go overseas.
What trade deals do is structure the way trade occurs, not create it.
The US is developing manufacturing jobs -- high tech manufacturing. These demand training and, over the long term, this sector will grow if we educate a workforce that can fill its needs.
Here's what will never happen again: millions of well-paying jobs for unskilled factory workers. That work can go anywhere and it will go where it is least expensive. Those jobs aren't coming back unless there is a broad societal consensus to pay much higher, artificially inflated prices for virtually everything. That will never happen.
To expect otherwise -- to think opposition to trade deals will change this trend-- is to indulge in self-delusion and nostalgia. That unions somehow have convinced people that they can is criminal.
The complaints about trade deals are based on the misperceptions that they cause unskilled,high-paying jobs to leave the country. Wrong. Low wages do that,combined with the profit motive. Growing up in a factory town in the 1970s I saw job after job leave the northeast for...the American South. Now they go overseas.
What trade deals do is structure the way trade occurs, not create it.
The US is developing manufacturing jobs -- high tech manufacturing. These demand training and, over the long term, this sector will grow if we educate a workforce that can fill its needs.
Here's what will never happen again: millions of well-paying jobs for unskilled factory workers. That work can go anywhere and it will go where it is least expensive. Those jobs aren't coming back unless there is a broad societal consensus to pay much higher, artificially inflated prices for virtually everything. That will never happen.
To expect otherwise -- to think opposition to trade deals will change this trend-- is to indulge in self-delusion and nostalgia. That unions somehow have convinced people that they can is criminal.
1
This is a very simplistic article. The way I understood the Donald's proposal was that tariffs would be threatened against countries which were unethically taking advantage of other countries or violating the trade agreements- such as China's manipulation of its currency and dumping oil. As for our country benefitting from cheaper products, what has happened in fact is that Americans have overconsumed these cheap products, which have ended up being poor quality , run domestic companies out of business, and resulted in a society which is now consumed with "purging", "minimizing" , and "organizing" too much stuff. And yes the big problem is automation - not just automation but a lack of emphasis on transitioning workers and jobs into a new economy. There are jobs in technology but not enough workers with the training for these jobs.
6
There are jobs in technology, but far fewer jobs. How many people are employed by Facebook or Twitter? How many software engineers are at Google? How many assembly line workers can transform themselves into software engineers? We have to adapt more broadly and trying to protect uncompetitive industries isn't the way to do it. I agree it's a tough problem, but protectionism and barriers are never the answer.
Trade was not a problem until late 1980s.
Solution? We must produce what others want. We don't do as much of this as we used to.
Why not? Big American firms have all but stopped innovating (they have all become banks, a petri dish for thieving Machiavellis). Motorola does not make cell phones. IBM does not make laptops. GM is making profits today, but will fail tomorrow when oil prices hike. Apple made over $50 billion last year; innovation was near zero. NASA cannot put a man on the moon today. Innovation and risk taking is left to entrepreneurs (who then sell the innovation to a big firm flush with cash).
Cash in the bank has made big firms risk averse (see Kahneman & Tversky's work on the counter-intiuitive nature of risk aversion).
Americans feel the pain from a rotting service sector. Healthcare is inefficient (if effective for a few). Government spending is a black hole since 9/11. Crumbling infrastructure, robber banks, and monopolistic cable companies are increasing the pain Americans feel. Our homes look like landfill (not carefully curated museums), we live alone (40%), have few meaningful relationships (we bowl alone). Most all new jobs we create are low wage; when we should replace them with machines and computers. The misery is reflected in our addictions to substances (and shopping).
The problem is not trade. It is us. When we don't innovate, we die.
Kalidan
Solution? We must produce what others want. We don't do as much of this as we used to.
Why not? Big American firms have all but stopped innovating (they have all become banks, a petri dish for thieving Machiavellis). Motorola does not make cell phones. IBM does not make laptops. GM is making profits today, but will fail tomorrow when oil prices hike. Apple made over $50 billion last year; innovation was near zero. NASA cannot put a man on the moon today. Innovation and risk taking is left to entrepreneurs (who then sell the innovation to a big firm flush with cash).
Cash in the bank has made big firms risk averse (see Kahneman & Tversky's work on the counter-intiuitive nature of risk aversion).
Americans feel the pain from a rotting service sector. Healthcare is inefficient (if effective for a few). Government spending is a black hole since 9/11. Crumbling infrastructure, robber banks, and monopolistic cable companies are increasing the pain Americans feel. Our homes look like landfill (not carefully curated museums), we live alone (40%), have few meaningful relationships (we bowl alone). Most all new jobs we create are low wage; when we should replace them with machines and computers. The misery is reflected in our addictions to substances (and shopping).
The problem is not trade. It is us. When we don't innovate, we die.
Kalidan
3
@Kalidan
Innovate what? When necessities are covered financially, Americans will not buy something just because it's an "innovation." After all, their incomes have stagnated, so there is no extra money to purchase an "innovation."
Innovate what? When necessities are covered financially, Americans will not buy something just because it's an "innovation." After all, their incomes have stagnated, so there is no extra money to purchase an "innovation."
Trump is not against trade but sees the current trade deals as poorly negotiated. China was allowed to kill several of our industries by flooding the market with cheap products some which were sold cheaper than the cost to produce. We weren't tough enough to stop these practices. Our laws made it easy for companies to leave and bring back their products with no consequences. The government's policy of high immigration has kept wages down. With no repercussions companies left and moved to China or Mexico. Meanwhile there are now over two workers for every job and salaries have been flat. Jobs haven't kept up with population growth. 94 million workers are out of the labor market. Policies have not been favorable to keep jobs here. California is a microcosm of this; 9000 businesses have left in the past few years as state policies include high taxes and regulations. The current administration has had almost 8 years to fix things. The recovery has been weak in large part due to the policies of the last 8 years. Obama focused on the ACA instead of policies to improve job growth which lead to a Hugh increase in part time workers. If Hillary continues as Obama's third term it will be more of the same. She is not going to roll back immigration until there is a more robust employment number or renegotiate trade deals like NAFTA. She has promised a hefty tax increase which will ultimately mean higher taxes for everyone not just the rich. I fear what will happen if she is elected.
4
@Connie
Like Trump, you avoid inconvenient facts. When President Obama entered office, the U.S. was losing 600,000 job/month, but now the U.S. is gaining 200,000 jobs/month, reducing unemploymet to 4.9% (only twice since the 1970s has it been this low). You and others try to hide the big picture of dramatice improvement in unemployment by cherry-picking tiny facts.
Americans were buying Toyotas, instead of Ford, GM, or Chrysler cars, long before NAFTA or other trade deals, reducing demand for U.S. cars. Why did Americans buy foreign cars? (Remember Iococca's return to Chryler in the 1980s?) Did the "government" make them do it, or did American consumers decide that Toyotas were a better value?
No evidence is presented anywhere that "high immigration" has kept wages down. Are Americans competing with Mexicans for jobs as (high paying) farm workers?
Republicans always want government to "stay out of business" to let markets run free. But when business people make decisions that hurt wages (like moving Boeing to South Carolina to avoid union contracts, or moving a car plant to Tennessee for that same reason), then citizens who voted Republican think that government should step in to make life all better. Advice: stop voting for Republicans.
Like Trump, you avoid inconvenient facts. When President Obama entered office, the U.S. was losing 600,000 job/month, but now the U.S. is gaining 200,000 jobs/month, reducing unemploymet to 4.9% (only twice since the 1970s has it been this low). You and others try to hide the big picture of dramatice improvement in unemployment by cherry-picking tiny facts.
Americans were buying Toyotas, instead of Ford, GM, or Chrysler cars, long before NAFTA or other trade deals, reducing demand for U.S. cars. Why did Americans buy foreign cars? (Remember Iococca's return to Chryler in the 1980s?) Did the "government" make them do it, or did American consumers decide that Toyotas were a better value?
No evidence is presented anywhere that "high immigration" has kept wages down. Are Americans competing with Mexicans for jobs as (high paying) farm workers?
Republicans always want government to "stay out of business" to let markets run free. But when business people make decisions that hurt wages (like moving Boeing to South Carolina to avoid union contracts, or moving a car plant to Tennessee for that same reason), then citizens who voted Republican think that government should step in to make life all better. Advice: stop voting for Republicans.
1
The real unemployment number, the U-6 number, is close to 10%. Remember that there is a record high number of people out of the labor market, over 94 million, and people who are forced to work part time. If you look at the jobs created from now to the previous jobs peak in January 2008 -- which is how job growth is normally measured -- the number of private-sector jobs has increased just 5.6 million.During that time, the population grew by more than 20 million. In other words, there’s a jobs gap of more than 14 million. Obama has actually done very little to help the jobs number and Hillary has vowed to be his third term. Disaster.
1
The trade treaties that have wreaked such havoc are not trade treaties that promote trade within the traditional definition of trade. They should be called faux-trade treaties.
In the traditional sense, trade occurs when a business entity exports its products to foreign market. That's not what the faux-trade treaties promote.
The faux-trade treaties promote a modern day form of mercantilism. They encourage American investment in foreign countries, off-shoring of manufacturing operations, the importation of American designed products for domestic corporations in foreign countries and the formation of off-shore capital pools.
The faux-trade treaties operate within the context of US policies that reinforce modern mercantilism. Those policies include taxation, labor regulation, anti-trust regulation and banking regulation. Since the 50's these policies have resulted in oligopolies, financial institutions dominating the economy and oligarchs controlling the economy and government. The results are not pretty.
It took over half a century to get us from the relatively egalitarian 50's to raging inequality. It's not just the faux-trade treaties that need to be corrected, it's the broad range of policies that promote modern mercantilism. That correction will take many years to accomplish.
In the traditional sense, trade occurs when a business entity exports its products to foreign market. That's not what the faux-trade treaties promote.
The faux-trade treaties promote a modern day form of mercantilism. They encourage American investment in foreign countries, off-shoring of manufacturing operations, the importation of American designed products for domestic corporations in foreign countries and the formation of off-shore capital pools.
The faux-trade treaties operate within the context of US policies that reinforce modern mercantilism. Those policies include taxation, labor regulation, anti-trust regulation and banking regulation. Since the 50's these policies have resulted in oligopolies, financial institutions dominating the economy and oligarchs controlling the economy and government. The results are not pretty.
It took over half a century to get us from the relatively egalitarian 50's to raging inequality. It's not just the faux-trade treaties that need to be corrected, it's the broad range of policies that promote modern mercantilism. That correction will take many years to accomplish.
92
Actually this is not correct from my reading of the history of trade. There were British and German owned companies in the U.S. before WWI that manufactured fabrics such as Rayon and a wide range of industrial chemicals.
Investment in and ownership of factories and other industry from over seas has been going on for a very long time, but the computer and internet enhanced communication, information access and ease of capitol transfer has vastly accelerated it.
Investment in and ownership of factories and other industry from over seas has been going on for a very long time, but the computer and internet enhanced communication, information access and ease of capitol transfer has vastly accelerated it.
1
It's interesting that the Times editorial writers cite Apple Computer as an example of a company benefiting from exports to China. Does the Times think the millions of iPhones manufactured in China are sent to the US before they are re-exported to Asia? Many people might ask why technology companies, who have been very aggressive at outsourcing manufacturing overseas and even more aggressive at international tax arbitrage, should be more influential in negotiating the TPP than companies who make things in the USA, employ manufacturing workers in the USA, and pay their taxes in the USA.
3
International trade deals aren't the problem, greed is the problem. If the average worker enjoyed the benefits of global trade there would be no problem selling trade deals as being good for the economy and good for world peace. We have never gone to war with a trading partner. However the companies have decided to consolidate their gains to the very few at the very top of their corporations. FedEx has just purchased TNT (a large European delivery service), giving them a much bigger footprint in the overseas markets. Nothing wrong with that, unless they haven't given their employees the proper raises over the last few years in order to make the purchase. Nobody benefits, in this day and age from closed borders, but if only the top one percent benefits, what difference should it make to the working stiffs?
We don't believe trade hurt the country, we believe trade hurt the working class.
Trade agreements like NAFTA, the practical elimination of tariffs and cheap container shipping have devastated blue collar middle class manufacturing jobs. That is why the rust belt is rusty. That is why wages are stagnant.
The Democrats spout off about all the "clean energy" jobs that are coming. The solar panels are manufactured in China. The windmill generator mechanisms are made in Europe. How is that going to provide job growth here?
I want a President that puts US citizens first, the rest of the world second.
I want a President that puts good paying jobs for citizens first, the needs of illegal aliens second. When we need more workers we can allow more immigration, but controlled and documented.
Trade agreements like NAFTA, the practical elimination of tariffs and cheap container shipping have devastated blue collar middle class manufacturing jobs. That is why the rust belt is rusty. That is why wages are stagnant.
The Democrats spout off about all the "clean energy" jobs that are coming. The solar panels are manufactured in China. The windmill generator mechanisms are made in Europe. How is that going to provide job growth here?
I want a President that puts US citizens first, the rest of the world second.
I want a President that puts good paying jobs for citizens first, the needs of illegal aliens second. When we need more workers we can allow more immigration, but controlled and documented.
3
There certainly are "losers" in these multinational trade deals, and it's the usual folks who are always cast aside as collateral damage--the working class. Agreements like Nafta made it easier--almost imperative--for businesses to offshore everything they possibly could. What CEO in his or her right mind wouldn't manufacture their product in a country that pays a fraction of the US wage? You would have to be a cretin not to. And what is the benefit for the US worker? To be able to pay a few dollars less for that shirt or TV or washing machine. Of course that worker would be able to afford the higher price if his/her wages had risen on a reasonable basis. But what incentive do US corporations have to raise pay when they always have the option to move to Mexico (or wherever) or turn to the semi-documented labor force invited here for the express purpose of whipsawing wages downward? Quite simply, businesses are not raising salaries because they don't have to. There are no complex economic formulas to work through or squiggly lines to try and make sense of to understand this. There are no rules at work here except the oldest one: Whatever the market will bear.
Donald Trump is a repulsive con man. And those jobs are not coming back no matter what he or Clinton says.
Donald Trump is a repulsive con man. And those jobs are not coming back no matter what he or Clinton says.
1
It is true that free trade lowers prices of many commodities. Leaving aside the question of job loss (which society makes almost no effort to deal with), and leaving aside the question of unequal distribution of increased profits (which likewise society makes almost no effort to deal with), we might ask: How important are low-priced commodities? Are we better off for having more and more and more things -- things that are often of lower and lower quality? We are awash with objects but, I think, we are no happier than we were fifty years ago. Rather: there has been some progress in the last 50 years -- in gender rights and sexual rights, for instance, or scientific advances -- but not because of free trade.
3
These agreements, which the Times persistently, and inaccurately, insists on referring to as "trade deals" have little do with trade barriers -- which are already low or non-existent.
Rather, as the Times well knows, the deals provide a quasi-legal process -- judges are corporate appointees, in courts with no appeals -- for the world's largest financial interests to seek redress for lost profits, should the host country decide that any particular enterprise, however destructive, is incompatible with its national welfare. The agreement has also substantially extends intellectual property and copyright protections, which will cost American and foreign consumers billions, in the ever increasing march to transfer wealth from poor to rich.
Notably, as well, the labor "protections" are mere talk; there is no enforcement mechanism and in order to bring this agreement about, the Obama administration has had to openly countenance slavery abroad, by pretending it no longer exists.
The Times, if it's interested in a true debate about free trade, might begin by noting how little these secretly negotiated agreements, privy to corporate American (but not the public or even its elected officials) have to do with actual trade.
That'll be the day....
Rather, as the Times well knows, the deals provide a quasi-legal process -- judges are corporate appointees, in courts with no appeals -- for the world's largest financial interests to seek redress for lost profits, should the host country decide that any particular enterprise, however destructive, is incompatible with its national welfare. The agreement has also substantially extends intellectual property and copyright protections, which will cost American and foreign consumers billions, in the ever increasing march to transfer wealth from poor to rich.
Notably, as well, the labor "protections" are mere talk; there is no enforcement mechanism and in order to bring this agreement about, the Obama administration has had to openly countenance slavery abroad, by pretending it no longer exists.
The Times, if it's interested in a true debate about free trade, might begin by noting how little these secretly negotiated agreements, privy to corporate American (but not the public or even its elected officials) have to do with actual trade.
That'll be the day....
5
I don't think it's accurate to say that those against the TPP are against "trade"--it's a bit more complex. What I'm against is the lack of sovereignty that is part of TPP. Specifically, it would eliminate our ability to self-govern. No longer could we refuse to allow foreign interests to extract our resources, such as by fracking or open-pit mining, as such restrictions would be considered a barrier to trade. Such "barrier to trade" claims would take precedence over our environmental laws, regardless of the harm caused.
The "Investor-State Dispute Settlement" provisions completely bypass our justice system, instead taking disputes to an international arbitration tribunal where three lawyers rule on the matter--and with a bias toward protecting investor interests. This is how they can overrule laws and regulations, regardless of what this results in for the public and the land. For a peek at just a few examples and some details, see "Trade-Agreement Troubles" by James Surowiecki:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/trade-agreement-troubles
It has become a routine shorthand to say that those opposing TPP are "against trade" but this misrepresents the opposition. One can quite easily be pro-trade and anti-TPP. TPP is a serious threat to our self-governance!
The "Investor-State Dispute Settlement" provisions completely bypass our justice system, instead taking disputes to an international arbitration tribunal where three lawyers rule on the matter--and with a bias toward protecting investor interests. This is how they can overrule laws and regulations, regardless of what this results in for the public and the land. For a peek at just a few examples and some details, see "Trade-Agreement Troubles" by James Surowiecki:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/06/22/trade-agreement-troubles
It has become a routine shorthand to say that those opposing TPP are "against trade" but this misrepresents the opposition. One can quite easily be pro-trade and anti-TPP. TPP is a serious threat to our self-governance!
4
International trade is far more complicated than Mr. Trump's analysis (Surprise!). Manufactured goods imported into the U.S. from Mexico often contain 50 or 60% U.S. value components, and likewise include inputs from several other countries. Whenever you push the trade balloon with your finger in one place it pops out on the other side of the balloon. Curb imports from Mexico and more Mexicans will move to Texas and Iowa. Raise tariffs and an American-assembled Ford will cost $50,000. Trump's protectionist, anti-trade position is totally anachronistic- that horse has long left the barn. The truth is that we need to train Americans to do other things than we did in the 1950'a and 1960's. Those $30 per hour union factory assembly jobs are gone forever.
3
We can only achieve something close to a theoretical free market with the attendant efficiencies when all participants operate under the same set of rules with the same access to information and resources. For instance, a country like the USA, with fairly well regulated markets, legal norms, etc.
We cannot achieve this in the international market unless you can enforce world government.
We should, therefore, only import what we cannot produce in the US. Don't think we can? About 20 years ago, we produced about 95% of what we consumed right here in the USA. This was working great, and the primary beneficiary from the change to outsourcing has been owners of largest corporations, elites, investors, not workers. The fact is, any country with 100 million people or more can very efficiently operate self-sufficiently. It would be demonstrably better for China to make their own good for their own people, as well.
Actually, this is just common sense you don't need anyone outside our country to produce our goods and services. It may be PROFITABLE for someone, but unproductive for our society. Look up Squanderville by W Buffett in 2004. Note that 40 years of expanding trade has not brought peace or prosperity to most of the world, and small businesses generally don't do a bunch of intl trade. Most apologists for globalization are personally benefitting, while the rest of us suffer from the inefficiencies and injustices they choose to gloss over.
We cannot achieve this in the international market unless you can enforce world government.
We should, therefore, only import what we cannot produce in the US. Don't think we can? About 20 years ago, we produced about 95% of what we consumed right here in the USA. This was working great, and the primary beneficiary from the change to outsourcing has been owners of largest corporations, elites, investors, not workers. The fact is, any country with 100 million people or more can very efficiently operate self-sufficiently. It would be demonstrably better for China to make their own good for their own people, as well.
Actually, this is just common sense you don't need anyone outside our country to produce our goods and services. It may be PROFITABLE for someone, but unproductive for our society. Look up Squanderville by W Buffett in 2004. Note that 40 years of expanding trade has not brought peace or prosperity to most of the world, and small businesses generally don't do a bunch of intl trade. Most apologists for globalization are personally benefitting, while the rest of us suffer from the inefficiencies and injustices they choose to gloss over.
4
Trade agreements and trade are not the same thing.
No one is opposed to trade. No trade would mean no economy: no capitalism, no communism, no socialism, no feudalism, no barter, nothing.
The issue being debated is the terms of trade. The terms of trade encompass many things, from currency exchange rates & currency value to tariffs, capital controls, tax incentives & penalities, environmental laws, labor union rights, labor laws, and more.
The NYT editors do a great dis-service to the public by glossing all criticism of any or all trade deals as being against trade. It just is not true and it clouds the real issues.
If the only issue in trade deals was the question of whether people are for or against trade, then trade deals would be short documents. They could consist of just one word: either YES or NO.
But, my dear editors, please take a look at a trade deal and come back to your readers with an honest description of what the agreements say. They distinguish between different kinds of goods and services, protecting some and exposing others.
No one is opposed to trade. No trade would mean no economy: no capitalism, no communism, no socialism, no feudalism, no barter, nothing.
The issue being debated is the terms of trade. The terms of trade encompass many things, from currency exchange rates & currency value to tariffs, capital controls, tax incentives & penalities, environmental laws, labor union rights, labor laws, and more.
The NYT editors do a great dis-service to the public by glossing all criticism of any or all trade deals as being against trade. It just is not true and it clouds the real issues.
If the only issue in trade deals was the question of whether people are for or against trade, then trade deals would be short documents. They could consist of just one word: either YES or NO.
But, my dear editors, please take a look at a trade deal and come back to your readers with an honest description of what the agreements say. They distinguish between different kinds of goods and services, protecting some and exposing others.
5
I'm glad to see this discussion. I'd like to see more attention paid to automation. Manufacturing remains robust in the US, and the amount of work required to run the country hasn't diminished, but automation has had a tremendous impact on labor. This ranges all the way from rote factory work to airline pilots. So people from all walks of life and all levels of education and accomplishment are in fact affected.
There's a paradox at the core of "labor saving." The whole idea sounds fantastic - who wouldn't want to "save labor?" The vacuum cleaner and the washing machine and dryer are inventions that have reduced the amount of sheer physical work needed to clean a house.
Yet, that by definition means a worker isn't needed.
And, in the marketplace, a person is only worth what she or he can "produce," ie get paid for doing, so if a factory can make cars almost entirely with robots and an airliner only needs two pilots rather than three, and time-consuming, highly skilled commercial artwork is replaced by computer graphics, what happens to the workers?
A big part of America's ethos is Puritan: work and money define a person's value, our goodness. We haven't used automation to free people from work, we've used the lack of work created by machines and computers to shame people who now cannot earn a good living.
Maybe we need to re-balance our ideas about work, money, and intrinsic value, including the value of art and philosophy and knowledge.
There's a paradox at the core of "labor saving." The whole idea sounds fantastic - who wouldn't want to "save labor?" The vacuum cleaner and the washing machine and dryer are inventions that have reduced the amount of sheer physical work needed to clean a house.
Yet, that by definition means a worker isn't needed.
And, in the marketplace, a person is only worth what she or he can "produce," ie get paid for doing, so if a factory can make cars almost entirely with robots and an airliner only needs two pilots rather than three, and time-consuming, highly skilled commercial artwork is replaced by computer graphics, what happens to the workers?
A big part of America's ethos is Puritan: work and money define a person's value, our goodness. We haven't used automation to free people from work, we've used the lack of work created by machines and computers to shame people who now cannot earn a good living.
Maybe we need to re-balance our ideas about work, money, and intrinsic value, including the value of art and philosophy and knowledge.
6
Americans voters who oppose free trade are oblivious to the fact that the cheap prices they pay at Walmart on many essentials such as clothing and footwear are because of the world trade. If these goods were made in the US they will be priced higher. Since the US labor costs are higher a manufacturer will seek automation first thus negating the possibility of creating more jobs in manufacturing. Walmart and other low cost supply channels may not afford to add extra margins to the high-priced US manufactured goods and most likely will push on-line buying thus reducing the service sector jobs. Either way the people at the lower economic stratum benefiting currently from the low consumer prices due to trade deals will lose on both counts - higher prices combined with diminishing service and manufacturing sector jobs. Mr. Trump cannot reverse the laws of economics and, if he is elected, the same “uneducated” supporters will show up with pitch forks at the White House or the Trump Tower whichever the seat of power is for President Trump.
3
It is hilarious that you would say that trade has become an issue in the campaign. It was an issue in the Republican primary between Trump and the others but Trump and Clinton are saying pretty much the same thing: that our trade deals are bad and they must be changed to protect American jobs.
0ne suspects that Clinton is lying about what she believes in order to get elected whereas Trump actually believes what he is saying. But everyone needs to understand, especially Trump his supporters and the Chinese, that what they are both saying now is dumb.
Trading with other nations is good for a nation precisely because it destroys jobs. By destroying jobs it frees up resources, especially labor that can be used to produce still more stuff, for itself (or other) and will be, provided that its government allows and encourages it to happen by minimizing to the extent possible the cost of doing business.
If a nation is smart, it will try to run a "trade deficit", and the bigger the better. Of course, if every nation is smart and tries, none will succeed. Trade will be balanced and robust for all. It is only when some, like China now, are dumb enough to believe they benefit from a surplus rather than a deficit can one like us run a huge deficit and live far beyond its means.
The question is will we prove in 2017 and beyond that we are as dumb as China.
0ne suspects that Clinton is lying about what she believes in order to get elected whereas Trump actually believes what he is saying. But everyone needs to understand, especially Trump his supporters and the Chinese, that what they are both saying now is dumb.
Trading with other nations is good for a nation precisely because it destroys jobs. By destroying jobs it frees up resources, especially labor that can be used to produce still more stuff, for itself (or other) and will be, provided that its government allows and encourages it to happen by minimizing to the extent possible the cost of doing business.
If a nation is smart, it will try to run a "trade deficit", and the bigger the better. Of course, if every nation is smart and tries, none will succeed. Trade will be balanced and robust for all. It is only when some, like China now, are dumb enough to believe they benefit from a surplus rather than a deficit can one like us run a huge deficit and live far beyond its means.
The question is will we prove in 2017 and beyond that we are as dumb as China.
Trade historically has improved the quality of living/life expectancy of humankind, so historically the world has benefited from trade but there are some nuances in trade agreements that must be carefully delineated so as to do more good than harm. Because there are pronounced differences between countries, trade agreements must consider labor conditions, environment, and distribution of earnings including not fostering complicity in corruption of governments.
With all of that said, there are level playing field issues that are important. To illustrate one that I know well is the treatment of superconducting Maglev transport technology. It was first invented by Drs. James Powell & Gordon Danby in 1966 & caused quite a stir in the US and Japan. The US had an R&D program but in 1975 cancelled the program due to budgetary pressures.
In 1986, the late Senator Moynihan learning of Maglev work in Germany and Japan became concerned that the US was falling behind in the future transport systems and sponsored bi-partisan legislation which passed the Senate but was stopped cold in House committee by strong opposition led by the airline industry.
Now, Japan after decades of government sponsored R&D has a SC Maglev passenger system that they have offered to the US for its heavily traveled North East Corridor. The US still has not funded a test and prototyping of Powell and Danby's system, like Japan's, even though the P&D system has evolved to be much better than Japan's.
With all of that said, there are level playing field issues that are important. To illustrate one that I know well is the treatment of superconducting Maglev transport technology. It was first invented by Drs. James Powell & Gordon Danby in 1966 & caused quite a stir in the US and Japan. The US had an R&D program but in 1975 cancelled the program due to budgetary pressures.
In 1986, the late Senator Moynihan learning of Maglev work in Germany and Japan became concerned that the US was falling behind in the future transport systems and sponsored bi-partisan legislation which passed the Senate but was stopped cold in House committee by strong opposition led by the airline industry.
Now, Japan after decades of government sponsored R&D has a SC Maglev passenger system that they have offered to the US for its heavily traveled North East Corridor. The US still has not funded a test and prototyping of Powell and Danby's system, like Japan's, even though the P&D system has evolved to be much better than Japan's.
1
The problem is not "trade" in the generic sense. The problem is that a country of 300 million is not going to prosper as a largely service based economy. The loss of the middle class post WWII American Dream is directly tied to the loss of good paying, family sustaining industrial jobs. Look at the histories and neighborhoods of many cities: what were industrial properties are now hip condos (full disclosure: I own one), coffee shops, and galleries. Instead of working together to make companies work profitably, owners and unions sought only immediate gains. The result: U.S. plants became too expensive, obsolete, and the offshored. Now we talk of self driving cars, trucks, and busses. Is that going to put another segment of middle class America out of work, too?
3
Why are manufacturing jobs necessarily "good paying and family sustaining"? That's only true if labor is a central part of production and if high labor costs can be supported by selling competitively priced products. That's no longer true. If research and design, capital investment, and automation/technology loom larger in the manufacturing process, those jobs become no better than any service job.
Bernie Sanders was the leader in exaggerating the destructive consequences of NAFTA- and for those who actually lost a job or knew someone who did because of a factory closure it was no exaggeration. The benefits from globalization are materialistic but the damage to workers can be devastating.
The key beneficiaries of globalization have been the investment class who are becoming filthy rich and the professional class, who now can order luxury goods made in China and elsewhere for a fraction of what they'd cost if made in the USA, though all consumers get some of this benefit.
Instead of railing against trade deals which create wealth, politicians should be talking about how we can cycle more of that wealth towards working people without destroying the incentives of investment. It is a complicated choreography that politicians like to dumb down because their constituents like a simple story with real heroes and villains.
The key beneficiaries of globalization have been the investment class who are becoming filthy rich and the professional class, who now can order luxury goods made in China and elsewhere for a fraction of what they'd cost if made in the USA, though all consumers get some of this benefit.
Instead of railing against trade deals which create wealth, politicians should be talking about how we can cycle more of that wealth towards working people without destroying the incentives of investment. It is a complicated choreography that politicians like to dumb down because their constituents like a simple story with real heroes and villains.
6
For years, I have ranted on the NYT's Comments sections about America's bad trade deals and the devastation of the working class. But it is foolish to oppose international trade. The problem is that America has opened its markets to export economies that do not fully open their markets to American goods. We have tolerated competition from countries that practice unfair trade policies, perhaps because it still benefits large corporations.
Economists who attribute the loss of American manufacturing jobs to automation are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. In the late 1940's manufacturing represented about 30% of American GDP. Today it is about 11%. So, it's not simply that automation has taken manufacturing jobs, it is very much because there is much less manufacturing in America.
Certainly automation will continue to reduce manufacturing employment, but political leaders need to regard manufacturing as important to the American economy and to renegotiate trade deals that encourage the re-birth of manufacturing in this country.
America used to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Now 80% of drugs are manufactured in China and India, where quality controls are weak. Think about that the next time you swallow a pill.
Economists who attribute the loss of American manufacturing jobs to automation are WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. In the late 1940's manufacturing represented about 30% of American GDP. Today it is about 11%. So, it's not simply that automation has taken manufacturing jobs, it is very much because there is much less manufacturing in America.
Certainly automation will continue to reduce manufacturing employment, but political leaders need to regard manufacturing as important to the American economy and to renegotiate trade deals that encourage the re-birth of manufacturing in this country.
America used to manufacture pharmaceuticals. Now 80% of drugs are manufactured in China and India, where quality controls are weak. Think about that the next time you swallow a pill.
2
Milton Friedman used to argue that free trade provided an economy with a great deal. Everyone benefits from cheaper prices whereas only a relative few loose jobs or must endure lower wages. It's macro economics vs micro economics and it's a transactional, externality problem people have a difficult time judging - personal loss vs benefits to the population. The anecdotes are heart wrenching but the value in global trade (especially, if we can impose human rights and environmentally sensitive rules) is unassailable.
2
It strikes me that a true-blue (true-red?) Marxist would not be the least bit surprised — or distressed — by the shifting global economy.
After all, Americans enjoyed a powerful advantage during the post WWII-era, in which the middle class grew and prospered like no other in history.
But capitalism, inexorably, sought more and greater profits, and at a certain point, the American middle class was simply not a large enough market. Improving technology, offshoring, trade agreements and international banking havens are all strategies that has increasingly shifted the benefits of the American middle class to the world at large — thus you see growing middle classes in places like Brazil and China. That is the true "globalization" effect.
But note that for large global corporations and their shareholders, this has meant higher profits, which was the point all along. The average American no longer can count on improving circumstances, but the average high-end capitalist and the investor class can.
The middle class is growing — on a global scale. In America that means stagnation for the middle class (and worse for lower classes) but — surprise! — enormous profits for the investor class. Marx would not be surprised.
After all, Americans enjoyed a powerful advantage during the post WWII-era, in which the middle class grew and prospered like no other in history.
But capitalism, inexorably, sought more and greater profits, and at a certain point, the American middle class was simply not a large enough market. Improving technology, offshoring, trade agreements and international banking havens are all strategies that has increasingly shifted the benefits of the American middle class to the world at large — thus you see growing middle classes in places like Brazil and China. That is the true "globalization" effect.
But note that for large global corporations and their shareholders, this has meant higher profits, which was the point all along. The average American no longer can count on improving circumstances, but the average high-end capitalist and the investor class can.
The middle class is growing — on a global scale. In America that means stagnation for the middle class (and worse for lower classes) but — surprise! — enormous profits for the investor class. Marx would not be surprised.
3
No, trade in and of itself has not destroyed good American manufacturing jobs. The culprit there is greed, pure and simple.
Over the last 35 years or so, the playing field has been deliberately tilted against the American worker. Unions have been decimated, pensions have been looted, and manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, in some cases even when the company shipping out the jobs was profitable here in the United States. Carrier is a current example of this.
Quite simply, in order to move the money upward that used to go to the worker, the bargain between management and labor was broken by management. CEO pay has skyrocketed, as have profits, as has productivity. In the past, however, when productivity improved, workers were financially rewarded for having become more productive. No longer.
And while this has happened, with the tacit blessing of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, Germany continues to export manufactured goods made by a unionized, well paid, well benefited work force.
So no, it isn't "trade", per se, that has hurt American workers, but NAFTA and TPP have been put together with workers having no place at the table, because workers are important only in election years, when politicians need their votes.
And this is one of those years.
Over the last 35 years or so, the playing field has been deliberately tilted against the American worker. Unions have been decimated, pensions have been looted, and manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, in some cases even when the company shipping out the jobs was profitable here in the United States. Carrier is a current example of this.
Quite simply, in order to move the money upward that used to go to the worker, the bargain between management and labor was broken by management. CEO pay has skyrocketed, as have profits, as has productivity. In the past, however, when productivity improved, workers were financially rewarded for having become more productive. No longer.
And while this has happened, with the tacit blessing of both the Republican and Democratic Parties, Germany continues to export manufactured goods made by a unionized, well paid, well benefited work force.
So no, it isn't "trade", per se, that has hurt American workers, but NAFTA and TPP have been put together with workers having no place at the table, because workers are important only in election years, when politicians need their votes.
And this is one of those years.
14
My first job, inputting prices of caskets into a Wang computer in 1977, for a CPA firm, to produce balance sheets and income statements, would not exist today. Instead, the caskets might be scanned into inventory by bar codes to the funeral home's computer, producing the statements in-house. The info would be sent electronically from the funeral home to the CPA firm, which would generate tax returns at the touch of a button, and then send the returns electronically to the IRS. It can be done much more efficiently now, with fewer people, and ever smaller equipment that is depreciated. Even the office space required would be cut in half.
I remember how excited my bosses were, leaning over the tractor-feed printer, marveling at the new statements that popped out, instead of relying on the expert typing skills of the head secretary out in the anteroom. Her skills, worth much more than mine, would now be considered obsolete, as the partners would now rely on email, instead of business letters.
The three clerical workers, a bookkeeper, and I held jobs back then that would not exist today, but the three CPAs would be working just as hard or harder today, and generating even more work. That Wang computer with its tractor-feed printer was the camel's nose in the tent.
I left the firm, married, and we raised four kids, thanks to Walmart and IKEA, in the narrowing, credit-maxed middle class.
I remember how excited my bosses were, leaning over the tractor-feed printer, marveling at the new statements that popped out, instead of relying on the expert typing skills of the head secretary out in the anteroom. Her skills, worth much more than mine, would now be considered obsolete, as the partners would now rely on email, instead of business letters.
The three clerical workers, a bookkeeper, and I held jobs back then that would not exist today, but the three CPAs would be working just as hard or harder today, and generating even more work. That Wang computer with its tractor-feed printer was the camel's nose in the tent.
I left the firm, married, and we raised four kids, thanks to Walmart and IKEA, in the narrowing, credit-maxed middle class.
73
FACTS:
1. Yes. Trade raises combined GDP of the countries undertaking the trade. However it is not that simple.
2. If there is free trade between two countries then the country with the lower GDP per capita benefits more.
3. Free trade is not ALWAYS the best for a country. Protectionism works at certain stages of the product cycle. I live in the valley. New industries and innovation needs protectionism. China would not have risen without it.
4. If two countries trade and one (as China did) fixes its currency, then that is not free trade. China benefited from Protectionism. The have a huge trade surplus. Our trade deficit worsened.
So what happened to the US. (yes trump is right on this alone). China benefitted from protectionism. Our economists preached the free trade mantra without nuance or caveat. Our jobs went to China. They gained relative to our gains. They gained global power. We lost our single global superpower status. They have become belligerent militarily.
So the unthinking dogma of free trade has left us very much worse off.
1. Yes. Trade raises combined GDP of the countries undertaking the trade. However it is not that simple.
2. If there is free trade between two countries then the country with the lower GDP per capita benefits more.
3. Free trade is not ALWAYS the best for a country. Protectionism works at certain stages of the product cycle. I live in the valley. New industries and innovation needs protectionism. China would not have risen without it.
4. If two countries trade and one (as China did) fixes its currency, then that is not free trade. China benefited from Protectionism. The have a huge trade surplus. Our trade deficit worsened.
So what happened to the US. (yes trump is right on this alone). China benefitted from protectionism. Our economists preached the free trade mantra without nuance or caveat. Our jobs went to China. They gained relative to our gains. They gained global power. We lost our single global superpower status. They have become belligerent militarily.
So the unthinking dogma of free trade has left us very much worse off.
2
Buying imports where genuinely competitive (innovative in some way, by kind, features or process) or not readily available here, is one thing, and fine. But when "offshoring" jobs just means offshoring labor and environmental practices that would be criminal here, that's not progress, that's bull.
Sub-minimum wages, toxic counterfeits, no real right to organize, pollution of the air and water, destruction of natural ecosystems, child labor, unpaid overtime, slave labor by prisoners of conscience... is that what makes Chinese products "competitive?"
Same for trade agreements like TPP that will allow international companies to overturn our laws on product quality and safety, e.g. tobacco.
Free trade on an equal playing field would be fine. Hope we see that someday. Haven't seen it yet.
Will every victory for labor, the environment and product safety be canceled by offshoring of the crimes? Is that what the NYT advocates?
Sub-minimum wages, toxic counterfeits, no real right to organize, pollution of the air and water, destruction of natural ecosystems, child labor, unpaid overtime, slave labor by prisoners of conscience... is that what makes Chinese products "competitive?"
Same for trade agreements like TPP that will allow international companies to overturn our laws on product quality and safety, e.g. tobacco.
Free trade on an equal playing field would be fine. Hope we see that someday. Haven't seen it yet.
Will every victory for labor, the environment and product safety be canceled by offshoring of the crimes? Is that what the NYT advocates?
1
Secret, corporate-written trade deals have done little to protect American workers from a "race to the bottom" mentality where jobs are outsourced to low wage, low benefit, low environmental protection countries. We need fair trade not so-called free trade that allows corporations to write the rules that benefit their management and shareholders. Moreover, we need to protect the sovereignty of our nations laws and standards that now can be overruled by disgruntled companies like TransCanada that is suing the U.S. for $15 billion over the Keystone XL pipeline that was cancelled by President Obama. Until we allow labor at the table where the agreements are written, we will continue to have, as we have domestically, an unbalanced globalization that transfers wealth from the many to the few. If we strengthened unions at home, workers would have participated in the immense productivity gains over the last 30 years instead of suffering from union-busting Republicans like Scott Walker and "right-to-work" laws that have also contributed to the hollowing out of the middle class.
3
You will have to do a better job, Editors, convincing those of us who have been against these trade deals since the 1990's. The trade deals passed under Bill Clinton were passed with almost 100% Republican support and with the support of a minority of Democrats. The majority of Democrats voted against each trade bill offered to Congress by the Clinton Administration.
That ought to tell us something.
We need well researched studies dealing in facts that show us that "free trade" is good for the middle class and the poor (whom no one even mentions anymore._
Until shown otherwise, millions of us believe that "free trade" benefits Business, especially multi nationals, and hurts the poor and the middle class. Is there even one huge multi-national that opposes "free trade?".
That, too, ought to tell us something.
It may be true that the collapse of the economy in 2008 was far more responsible for the devastation visited upon the middle class along with the advances in technology.
But we'll never know that as long as the laws of this country encourage US companies to shutter their businesses here and reopen them in low wage countries and then, to add insult to injury, sell their products here with absolutely no increase in price or punitive tax.
It seems like much more research is needed before penning such an editorial.
That ought to tell us something.
We need well researched studies dealing in facts that show us that "free trade" is good for the middle class and the poor (whom no one even mentions anymore._
Until shown otherwise, millions of us believe that "free trade" benefits Business, especially multi nationals, and hurts the poor and the middle class. Is there even one huge multi-national that opposes "free trade?".
That, too, ought to tell us something.
It may be true that the collapse of the economy in 2008 was far more responsible for the devastation visited upon the middle class along with the advances in technology.
But we'll never know that as long as the laws of this country encourage US companies to shutter their businesses here and reopen them in low wage countries and then, to add insult to injury, sell their products here with absolutely no increase in price or punitive tax.
It seems like much more research is needed before penning such an editorial.
2
This editorial is short on facts, long on hot air. In a world where most workers live on a few dollars, it's obvious that they are cheaper labor than US workers provided they can do the work. That puts downward pressure on US wages that can't be circumvented.
Where jobs require special training or specialized equipment they can be kept in the US until those skills and that equipment appears elsewhere. That is only a matter of time, especially where tons of money is available in the hands of a few investors.
A single example is the export of integrated circuit manufacture to Korea, Taiwan, China, and elsewhere. Not only have trillions of dollars of investment left the USA, millions of skilled jobs, but also the environment for further invention. Samsung has outstripped Apple, even though Apple has outsourced its manufacture.
So what's to be done? Nothing has been proposed so far.
Where jobs require special training or specialized equipment they can be kept in the US until those skills and that equipment appears elsewhere. That is only a matter of time, especially where tons of money is available in the hands of a few investors.
A single example is the export of integrated circuit manufacture to Korea, Taiwan, China, and elsewhere. Not only have trillions of dollars of investment left the USA, millions of skilled jobs, but also the environment for further invention. Samsung has outstripped Apple, even though Apple has outsourced its manufacture.
So what's to be done? Nothing has been proposed so far.
1
Globalization and the advances in technology that continually expedite it is here to stay. However, in established economies, the gross income and opportunity inequality fostered by these changes can only be viewed as a failure of leadership, worldwide. Regular folk are bereft, tremendously fearful about their and their children's futures, and rightfully so. We were a once stakeholder economy, one in which business balanced the needs of shareholders with those of employees, customers and citizens, along with a commitment to giving back to the communities in which they were based. Now as we careen towards Oligarchy/Corporatocracy (and in this election year the unsettling hints of dystopia) corporations write our laws and our trade deals with only increasing their own profit margins in focus.
I think most people who think on these things know that trade agreements are important and necessary. But the TPP, for instance, with its ISDS chapter, gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international arbitration if they feel their property rights are violated, as is happening right now with the Keystone Pipeline under Nafta. So yes, trade agreements are necessary and important, but they must not trample the rights, needs, and wishes of citizens and workers. We can and must do better.
I think most people who think on these things know that trade agreements are important and necessary. But the TPP, for instance, with its ISDS chapter, gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international arbitration if they feel their property rights are violated, as is happening right now with the Keystone Pipeline under Nafta. So yes, trade agreements are necessary and important, but they must not trample the rights, needs, and wishes of citizens and workers. We can and must do better.
3
"Trade generally benefits the economy, but there are winners and losers." One obvious problem is that the winners and losers are not really ever spelled out nor does their seem to be a full accounting. Again we are dealing with a trust issue, at least as far as workers are concerned where the risks appear more immediate. Who wins and who loses and by how much and how does this interact with "automation" that is also being proposed as a significant cause of manufacturing job loss? I would hope that economists as well as politicians weigh in on this issue. Right now the popular consensus is that the very rich and multinational corporations are the big winners with workers the big losers. This may be somewhat ameliorated by cheaper prices for consumers but trying to see this in totality is very difficult. And speaking of compensating the losers, why does that never seem to be part of what Congress is asked to approve when they approve a trade package and who monitors and adjusts all this as time goes by anyway. The rich and the big corporations seem well protected by their legions of lawyers and lobbyists but who is looking out for the common working man?
2
American economic trade practices since about 1950 and who gets hurt the most from these practices?
After WW2 and invention of WMD and possibility of war laying total waste to world, economic interdependence, open societies (democracy) and trade became paramount for national security and economic well being. This trade of course has always been propagandized as helping the whole of society, but when with drawbacks mentioned (exportation of jobs, job killing automation) these drawbacks always seeming to have the commonality of hurting the weak and vulnerable, the low class and not high class of society.
This suited right wing politics in sense of capitalism, deregulation, pursuit of cheapest labor and increased automation of tasks whether at home or abroad. But the left wing played into it because of particularities in its philosophy of socialism at home and abroad: The argument of helping everyone, reducing poverty at home and abroad, helping argument of exportation of jobs; and the philosophy of "nurture over nature"--which translates to no one really capable of being hurt by jobs exported or automation because humans can be perpetually retrained for better jobs--leading to an unnaturally optimistic view of development and transformation of society which when of course failing, hurting the vulnerable people of society the most. Now America seems to think exportation of jobs and automation is relatively harmless--just "educate" everyone up to high class of society.
After WW2 and invention of WMD and possibility of war laying total waste to world, economic interdependence, open societies (democracy) and trade became paramount for national security and economic well being. This trade of course has always been propagandized as helping the whole of society, but when with drawbacks mentioned (exportation of jobs, job killing automation) these drawbacks always seeming to have the commonality of hurting the weak and vulnerable, the low class and not high class of society.
This suited right wing politics in sense of capitalism, deregulation, pursuit of cheapest labor and increased automation of tasks whether at home or abroad. But the left wing played into it because of particularities in its philosophy of socialism at home and abroad: The argument of helping everyone, reducing poverty at home and abroad, helping argument of exportation of jobs; and the philosophy of "nurture over nature"--which translates to no one really capable of being hurt by jobs exported or automation because humans can be perpetually retrained for better jobs--leading to an unnaturally optimistic view of development and transformation of society which when of course failing, hurting the vulnerable people of society the most. Now America seems to think exportation of jobs and automation is relatively harmless--just "educate" everyone up to high class of society.
1
Trade is not the problem. Outsourcing and bottom-sourcing are the problem.
David Ricardo, the high priest of comparative advantage, never imagined English mill owners would be able to ship their machinery to Asia, pay workers 12 cents an hour there, and ship their output back at a nominal cost, all the while controlling the process through the internet and virtually cost-free global telecommunications. He pictured prosperous English mill towns exporting cloth and importing tea. He would be shocked to find his doctrine has created Camden, NJ, Compton, CA, and Hamptranck, MI.
Meanwhile Walmart and General Motors have led a qualitative race to the bottom in this country, squeezing suppliers and compromising quality to wring every last penny out of every last transaction. The result: made in the USA is seen as a punchline in the rest of the world. (But we still lead the world in exports of scrap paper and metal!)
And then there's Germany, where a culture based on accountability and dependability leads even capitalists to do everything they can to ensure the quality of the things they sell, with the result that the entire world is driving German cars, with the result that Germany enjoys a huge trade surplus, with the result that Germany gainfully employs its people.
Trade deals that encourage outsourcing and the import of Walmart-quality cheap, flimsy junk ARE the problem. Automation does nowhere near so much damage.
David Ricardo, the high priest of comparative advantage, never imagined English mill owners would be able to ship their machinery to Asia, pay workers 12 cents an hour there, and ship their output back at a nominal cost, all the while controlling the process through the internet and virtually cost-free global telecommunications. He pictured prosperous English mill towns exporting cloth and importing tea. He would be shocked to find his doctrine has created Camden, NJ, Compton, CA, and Hamptranck, MI.
Meanwhile Walmart and General Motors have led a qualitative race to the bottom in this country, squeezing suppliers and compromising quality to wring every last penny out of every last transaction. The result: made in the USA is seen as a punchline in the rest of the world. (But we still lead the world in exports of scrap paper and metal!)
And then there's Germany, where a culture based on accountability and dependability leads even capitalists to do everything they can to ensure the quality of the things they sell, with the result that the entire world is driving German cars, with the result that Germany enjoys a huge trade surplus, with the result that Germany gainfully employs its people.
Trade deals that encourage outsourcing and the import of Walmart-quality cheap, flimsy junk ARE the problem. Automation does nowhere near so much damage.
13
Let's not forget to factor Volkswagen cheating into this picture. But you're right, American workers demand cheap merchandise made in other countries and then wonder why there aren't enough good jobs in the US. What happened to "Buy American"? When American manufacturers started going after every last nickle regardless of the impact on the quality of their products, they bargained short-term profits for the few in exchange for declining living standards for the many. Tax imported products like iPhones to make up the difference and put that money into infrastructure that benefits all Americans.
2
This is the most superficial, poor analysis of TPP and it's effect on workers that I have read anywhere, and I usually like the Times Editorials.
No one is 'against trade.' They are against supporting a trade agreement that was negotiated in the dark, and that does not have sufficient safeguards for workers abroad or protections for the environment.
To quote David Underwood in his comment below: "The environmental communities objection to the TPP is its primacy over environmental regulations and laws. If an environmental issue causes a company to lose some business it can sue for compensation.
We have already seen this with the Canadian pipeline issue. The TPP has to have environmental protections, it has to put our environmental laws and regulations above its other provisions."
Also read how Canada has been forced to pay huge fines due to NAFTA's provisions that their sovereign environmental laws cannot impinge on the 'right' of corporations to make their profits. (Huffington Post, NAFTA, 1/14/15)
TPP pits global corporate power against the health of the global environment and the environmental laws that citizens have worked to enact to protect their own land. It also does not include sufficient rights of workers abroad to a living wage or the right to unionize. Until it includes these provisions, it is not acceptable.
We aren't against FAIR trade, just against free trade as currently embodied in the TPP.
No one is 'against trade.' They are against supporting a trade agreement that was negotiated in the dark, and that does not have sufficient safeguards for workers abroad or protections for the environment.
To quote David Underwood in his comment below: "The environmental communities objection to the TPP is its primacy over environmental regulations and laws. If an environmental issue causes a company to lose some business it can sue for compensation.
We have already seen this with the Canadian pipeline issue. The TPP has to have environmental protections, it has to put our environmental laws and regulations above its other provisions."
Also read how Canada has been forced to pay huge fines due to NAFTA's provisions that their sovereign environmental laws cannot impinge on the 'right' of corporations to make their profits. (Huffington Post, NAFTA, 1/14/15)
TPP pits global corporate power against the health of the global environment and the environmental laws that citizens have worked to enact to protect their own land. It also does not include sufficient rights of workers abroad to a living wage or the right to unionize. Until it includes these provisions, it is not acceptable.
We aren't against FAIR trade, just against free trade as currently embodied in the TPP.
11
We like easy answers, and easy explanations.
We don't really like complicated answers and ones in which there is nuance, and interrelationships and complexity.
Once the market for goods to be sold outside of the US became large enough, manufacturing those goods outside the US became inevitable. Even if we had kept making washers and TVs state side, we would have faced competition from LG or Haier, or Samsung and Sony. Foreign manufacturing aimed at global markets outside of the US would inevitably produce goods from cheaper labor under foreign labels. Inevitably, our ability to produce global goods here was limited. Unless our own internal demand was enough to keep US manufacturing afloat - and we had saturated markets for a lot of goods - we were going to face real problems manufacturing for the domestic market and maintaining the required growth in sales and profits.
I have no doubt that trade agreements accelerated the loss of jobs. And I have no doubt that our own politicians willingly stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the reality of what the rise of global participation in what had been predominantly American manufacturing would do to our own labor market and the welfare of our own citizens. I have no doubt that Republican policy of continuous tax cuts and fostering gambling investment over growth investment accrued wealth at the top and made everything worse.
But I don't believe there is any way we would have been able to hold on to all those jobs.
We don't really like complicated answers and ones in which there is nuance, and interrelationships and complexity.
Once the market for goods to be sold outside of the US became large enough, manufacturing those goods outside the US became inevitable. Even if we had kept making washers and TVs state side, we would have faced competition from LG or Haier, or Samsung and Sony. Foreign manufacturing aimed at global markets outside of the US would inevitably produce goods from cheaper labor under foreign labels. Inevitably, our ability to produce global goods here was limited. Unless our own internal demand was enough to keep US manufacturing afloat - and we had saturated markets for a lot of goods - we were going to face real problems manufacturing for the domestic market and maintaining the required growth in sales and profits.
I have no doubt that trade agreements accelerated the loss of jobs. And I have no doubt that our own politicians willingly stuck their heads in the sand and ignored the reality of what the rise of global participation in what had been predominantly American manufacturing would do to our own labor market and the welfare of our own citizens. I have no doubt that Republican policy of continuous tax cuts and fostering gambling investment over growth investment accrued wealth at the top and made everything worse.
But I don't believe there is any way we would have been able to hold on to all those jobs.
5
Yes, information and money flow freely and can establish manufacturing anywhere, including low wage countries. China, for example, has billions of people, and even if talent is rare, a small percentage of their population amounts to a huge number of geniuses.
However, the American culture is ours, and activities that enhance our way of life do not depend entirely upon widget making. We actually have plenty of widgets already, and advancing our quality of life is our real demand. Why can't big business focus upon improving our lives instead of jockeying about with government lobbying and flim-flammery to pick our pockets? Why not jobs that actually matter, instead of competing for pennies making widgets?
However, the American culture is ours, and activities that enhance our way of life do not depend entirely upon widget making. We actually have plenty of widgets already, and advancing our quality of life is our real demand. Why can't big business focus upon improving our lives instead of jockeying about with government lobbying and flim-flammery to pick our pockets? Why not jobs that actually matter, instead of competing for pennies making widgets?
1
The issue causing difficulty and dissatisfaction is not trade or trade deals per se. It is that, for the most part, no compensation has been paid to those American's who have lost there jobs as lower skilled manufacturing and service jobs moved oversea. A vast proportion of the gain from trade and from globalization, which is an extension of freer trade, have accrued to business owners and other investors. If fiscal policies were in place to tax the gains from trade and from outsourcing and off-shoring were more equitably, and if the revenue from those taxes were spent on transfer payments and training for the workers, their families, and their communities, which have been - in many case - devastated by trade and its affects, we would not see the kind of backlash that we do against trade. In fact, I think that the level of distrust of elites in general (and of politicians in general would be lower.
8
Only manufacturing (including mining and drilling) creates actual wealth. Most service jobs simply move wealth around. Countries that manufacture, e.g. Germany and China, are doing better than those that don't.
Consumers need income to purchase goods and that income becomes the revenue for the producers. Consumer income come primarily from labor. With labor costs being diminished by technology and off-shoring, it is not surprising that the growth in a consumer economy is tepid.
In stead of considering the price in dollars of items, consider the time it takes to earn the money to buy the item. This would factor in the impact of wage stagnation on price and the advantage of lower price goods is not as great.
Consumers need income to purchase goods and that income becomes the revenue for the producers. Consumer income come primarily from labor. With labor costs being diminished by technology and off-shoring, it is not surprising that the growth in a consumer economy is tepid.
In stead of considering the price in dollars of items, consider the time it takes to earn the money to buy the item. This would factor in the impact of wage stagnation on price and the advantage of lower price goods is not as great.
6
I believe the notion that "only manufacture creates wealth" is the prism that distorts our economy. American lives are made better by many activities, and only a few of them involve buying things. Economic stagnation is the result of this narrow focus and a failure to provide what Americans actually need for the good life. Those needs have nothing to do with mergers, acquisitions, divesting, government lobbying, and paying CEOs multimillions to do these useless things.
2
Nice straw man argument. The problem is not trade, it the trade deals our country has been making, how they have been made, and what provisions they make for investor state disputes.
First, the whole construct of these trade deals has been to make an end run around the Constitutional provision for treaties, and make no mistake- these are treaties in everything but name. That would require a 2/3rds approval of the Senate- something the TPP, GATT, CAFTA, NAFTA and the rest would never be able to accomplish.
Second, these deals are negotiated in secret & exclude consumer, environmental, labor and human rights groups from knowledge of, participation in or consultation while including every corporate lobbying group one can name. Why should our government exclude citizen interest groups but give open entrance to corporate lobbyists and then mark up the deal in secret? President Obama lied to the Unions, promising them a place at the table in public at an event in Chicago shown live on C-Span.
Next, these deals undermine the soverignty of the United States and the lesser constituent levels of government below them with the system they use to resolve investor state disputes. Instead of a court of the United States or another nation, they use what are essentially binding arbitration panels where the presiding lawyers are commonly also representatives of plaintiffs. This essentially puts the US as subject to corporate lawyers who answer to no entity.
No secret trade schemes.
First, the whole construct of these trade deals has been to make an end run around the Constitutional provision for treaties, and make no mistake- these are treaties in everything but name. That would require a 2/3rds approval of the Senate- something the TPP, GATT, CAFTA, NAFTA and the rest would never be able to accomplish.
Second, these deals are negotiated in secret & exclude consumer, environmental, labor and human rights groups from knowledge of, participation in or consultation while including every corporate lobbying group one can name. Why should our government exclude citizen interest groups but give open entrance to corporate lobbyists and then mark up the deal in secret? President Obama lied to the Unions, promising them a place at the table in public at an event in Chicago shown live on C-Span.
Next, these deals undermine the soverignty of the United States and the lesser constituent levels of government below them with the system they use to resolve investor state disputes. Instead of a court of the United States or another nation, they use what are essentially binding arbitration panels where the presiding lawyers are commonly also representatives of plaintiffs. This essentially puts the US as subject to corporate lawyers who answer to no entity.
No secret trade schemes.
25
It's time to come up with proposed solutions instead of excuses.
The Western world is losing low-skilled jobs, and they aren't coming back.
There are at least 5 reasons for this
1. Automation. More and more things are being done by robots and computers. This leaves less jobs
2. Tax and Trade policy. 15% capital gains tax. Depreciation. Who knows what is in the TPP?
3. Outsourcing. The average wage in Vietnam is $150/month. To compete We have to drop our wages to $150/month. (Big Business is trying its hardest with Congressional help).
4. Illegal Immigration. When was the last time you saw an American-Born cleaning person, farm worker, or construction worker? You can gloss over this as much as you like, but those were jobs done by low skilled Americans once.
5. Increasingly illegal In-Sourcing. Ask anybody who works in Tech, especially Disney employees. Infosys and Tata received 12,000+ visas. We've seen time and time again that they're just undercutting American Labor.
American workers are getting it from all sides. And thus: wages have stagnated and income inequality has skyrocketed for nearly 20 years.
Even those of us with jobs feel less secure. "Right to Work" states, more contractors, less full time. Less benefits. More work, less pay.
So by all means, pave the way for Hillary. Push your Pro-Illegal Immigration and Free Trade Stance. Ignore the working class
But then don't be surprised when the Right produces Trump, and the Left Bernie.
The Western world is losing low-skilled jobs, and they aren't coming back.
There are at least 5 reasons for this
1. Automation. More and more things are being done by robots and computers. This leaves less jobs
2. Tax and Trade policy. 15% capital gains tax. Depreciation. Who knows what is in the TPP?
3. Outsourcing. The average wage in Vietnam is $150/month. To compete We have to drop our wages to $150/month. (Big Business is trying its hardest with Congressional help).
4. Illegal Immigration. When was the last time you saw an American-Born cleaning person, farm worker, or construction worker? You can gloss over this as much as you like, but those were jobs done by low skilled Americans once.
5. Increasingly illegal In-Sourcing. Ask anybody who works in Tech, especially Disney employees. Infosys and Tata received 12,000+ visas. We've seen time and time again that they're just undercutting American Labor.
American workers are getting it from all sides. And thus: wages have stagnated and income inequality has skyrocketed for nearly 20 years.
Even those of us with jobs feel less secure. "Right to Work" states, more contractors, less full time. Less benefits. More work, less pay.
So by all means, pave the way for Hillary. Push your Pro-Illegal Immigration and Free Trade Stance. Ignore the working class
But then don't be surprised when the Right produces Trump, and the Left Bernie.
14
OK, so the trade deals should be revisited but in fairness, since they are deals which require negotiation and accommodation to others' interests as well as our own, revisiting them won't be so easy. Here's another thought: the effect on American manufacturing (and other sectors) of the shareholder value model, which implies that the ultimate measure of a company's success is the extent to which it enriches shareholders. We used to make the finest products in the world to sell them, to establish brands that were instantly recognized in a positive way, thereby establishing brand loyalty over the long-term. Now we push for shareholder value and the quality of the product or service has become basically irrelevant. When pure profit became the motivator over good profits and good products is when the flight overseas began and the loss of good paying manufacturing jobs took off. Sure, tweak the trade agreements, but let's not overlook or ignore the role of our buddies on Wall Street in pushing only shareholder value as the sole litmus test of success.
15
The rage against trade can be evidenced.
Attempts to social engineer thru trade policy, have been trumpeted (pun?) by political philosophers, as encouraging democracy. More preciously, the 'philosophers' version of democracy. All done with a 'for the greater good' cause. That is to say, the philosophers; Democrat, Republican, Left, Right, Progressive, Traditional; are making decisions about whether displacing Americans and or industries, is worth championing democracy in places that have been or could become adversaries. Noble, if not always immediately compassionate.
Or, as too often is the case, policy is used to wage political warfare against industries and their political affiliations. For the purpose of replacing industries with those politically favorable, and consequently financially advantageous. In short, politically-engineering for graft.
Attempts to social engineer thru trade policy, have been trumpeted (pun?) by political philosophers, as encouraging democracy. More preciously, the 'philosophers' version of democracy. All done with a 'for the greater good' cause. That is to say, the philosophers; Democrat, Republican, Left, Right, Progressive, Traditional; are making decisions about whether displacing Americans and or industries, is worth championing democracy in places that have been or could become adversaries. Noble, if not always immediately compassionate.
Or, as too often is the case, policy is used to wage political warfare against industries and their political affiliations. For the purpose of replacing industries with those politically favorable, and consequently financially advantageous. In short, politically-engineering for graft.
4
This piece is a bit shallow that garners a, "well, yes, but no" response. First, it's not automation, although it contributes. The U.S. automaker have have added more than twice the number of jobs in Mexico than they have in the U.S. That has nothing to do with the free trade agreements that governments negotiate. It has everything to do with U.S. allowing the free flow of capital and cheaper labor across borders with no consequences to the companies whatsoever, such as hefty severances and serious training given to workers. Moreover, politicians are too weak to raise the revenue necessary to redistribute income by way of boosted spending on projects that could generate other jobs( such as infrastructure), college tuition subsidies and other beneficial programs. Pundits are quick to invoke Schumpeter and creative destruction but forget in Schumpeter's context it was descriptive but not necessarily good. At some point that destruction would destroy the society on which capitalism depends.
12
Trump promises to bring back obsolete industries, like steel. With our wages, and living standard, much higher than that of developing countries, the steel that we produce is more expensive. The finish product, like cars, would be much more expensive too and will not be competitive for export. The only way for us to compete in industry like steel is to reduce cost and automate via robotics. Jobs in some industrial sectors will not come back. The fact is low skill, low knowledge based jobs are gone. Policies to preserve them is a race to the bottom. Do we want the average living standard of China or Brazil or Russia? I don't. While I don't think that we should give up on manufacturing (I am an engineer), in fact, I think that manufacturing is a potential growth area. The trick is that the products that we manufacture must be high value of and that means that high tech skill sets. If you think that your grandfather worked in a steel mill, your father worked in a steel mill, and you and your children must work in a steel mill, then we are lost. Besides revising financial and tax policies to ensure more equal income distribution (increase minimum wage, increase progressivity of income tax, and increase capital gain tax for starters), the government must institute an education system that provide life long training for our citizens. The world is moving too fast for anyone to think that the skills that they learned in their teens will be sufficient through their life.
132
The winners in the genetic lottery that determines health, intelligence, and appearance are capable of adapting, switching careers and thriving, even in an environment that ruined the lives of millions of people.
Let me see your jobs program for people without such gifts because that describes about half of the population. Telling people they need to work smarter and faster or fall into poverty is a recipe for massive social problems.
Education is not the key...
Education is a carrot on the end of a stick. If education were the key, the middle class would be doing better than ever before instead of rapidly disappearing.
Let me see your jobs program for people without such gifts because that describes about half of the population. Telling people they need to work smarter and faster or fall into poverty is a recipe for massive social problems.
Education is not the key...
Education is a carrot on the end of a stick. If education were the key, the middle class would be doing better than ever before instead of rapidly disappearing.
8
The point being overlooked is that products are outsourced to places like to China to make them more cheaply, not better. I've even heard from some procurement engineers that their Chines contacts will say that if you were concerned about quality you would have stopped in Japan.
I recall a recent review of some pruning saws that had a good reputation, stainless steel blades, robust synthetic handles, good tooth form and sharpness. A gentleman bought several for his crew to help with trail maintenance, and on the first outing all of the blades broke. A closer look reveled that they were now being made in China. All that one needs is a decent grade of a basic steel that is properly hardened and tempered, but that was evidently too difficult. This is the case for many products, as the cheapness is not just with what you can see, it also extends to the materials and their treatments. Chinese plastics are probably some of the worst products in the world because it is so easy to cheapen products by using lower grades of resins and fillers; the product looks the same but will not function the same over a period of time. The same with metals, threads used for cloth and cordage, adhesives, etc.
We need to bring back some of these 'obsolete' industries just to be able to purchase decent products again.
I recall a recent review of some pruning saws that had a good reputation, stainless steel blades, robust synthetic handles, good tooth form and sharpness. A gentleman bought several for his crew to help with trail maintenance, and on the first outing all of the blades broke. A closer look reveled that they were now being made in China. All that one needs is a decent grade of a basic steel that is properly hardened and tempered, but that was evidently too difficult. This is the case for many products, as the cheapness is not just with what you can see, it also extends to the materials and their treatments. Chinese plastics are probably some of the worst products in the world because it is so easy to cheapen products by using lower grades of resins and fillers; the product looks the same but will not function the same over a period of time. The same with metals, threads used for cloth and cordage, adhesives, etc.
We need to bring back some of these 'obsolete' industries just to be able to purchase decent products again.
2
Of course the problem isn't just "trade", but that single word fits so nicely on a bumper sticker, which is the only way many voters can conceive of complex issues. The problem is "free" trade that promoted offshoring of our manufacturing, and then placed no limits on importing those manufactured goods and services. The resulting loss of jobs, wages, and profits that used to fuel America, now fuel foreign nations, multinational corporations, and Wall Street, while Main Street is abandoned.
The solution isn't simply to cancel all trade deals, but we should certainly revisit them and modify them. But we need to also change our tax structure to make offshoring unattractive, and importing unattractive, and investing in the U.S. and our workers very attractive.
As for the impending TPP, that must be squashed entirely, as it was written by, and for, multinationals, and infringes on our sovereignty as it allows any company that feels a law or regulation might impact their profits, to sue and collect damages. It grants more rights to faceless corporations than our own citizens enjoy!
When the majority of Americans can profit from trade like Corporate America, Wall Street, and the multinationals and foreign countries have, then we will have FAIR trade, and that's something to strive for.
The solution isn't simply to cancel all trade deals, but we should certainly revisit them and modify them. But we need to also change our tax structure to make offshoring unattractive, and importing unattractive, and investing in the U.S. and our workers very attractive.
As for the impending TPP, that must be squashed entirely, as it was written by, and for, multinationals, and infringes on our sovereignty as it allows any company that feels a law or regulation might impact their profits, to sue and collect damages. It grants more rights to faceless corporations than our own citizens enjoy!
When the majority of Americans can profit from trade like Corporate America, Wall Street, and the multinationals and foreign countries have, then we will have FAIR trade, and that's something to strive for.
164
Exploiting labor, and exploiting greed are the tools of exploiters. Oversimplifying hatred of trade agreements was the result of poor planning, lies, and the corruption of the Congress. Negotiating trade in secret, fast tracking trade thereby destroying democratic processes like debate and compromise have consistently delivered harmful outcomes to the general population. All of the arguments about the benefits of "free trade' collapse under the weight of job losses, growing inequality, and extraordinary profits that do not benefit Americans but only large companies who have no loyalty to America.
Many economists think that job loss is the result of automation? What a stupid argument! Many economists think that God is an invisible hand, many economists think that austerity is the answer to economic collapse, many economists think that free markets benefit all of the people. Many economists are on the payroll and weave a tale that satisfies the needs of their greedy patrons. Economists are narrators that justify the movement of value from democratic hands to oligarchs.
Trade is a scapegoat? Who are the sheep? What is the real problem? The real problem is that too few people have most of the wealth, that these wealthy people corrupt democracy, that our government does far more to protect the wealthy and steals from everyone else. Trade should require a return of all profits to America for taxing, taxing wealthy and corporations progressively, and transparency. Many economists..
Many economists think that job loss is the result of automation? What a stupid argument! Many economists think that God is an invisible hand, many economists think that austerity is the answer to economic collapse, many economists think that free markets benefit all of the people. Many economists are on the payroll and weave a tale that satisfies the needs of their greedy patrons. Economists are narrators that justify the movement of value from democratic hands to oligarchs.
Trade is a scapegoat? Who are the sheep? What is the real problem? The real problem is that too few people have most of the wealth, that these wealthy people corrupt democracy, that our government does far more to protect the wealthy and steals from everyone else. Trade should require a return of all profits to America for taxing, taxing wealthy and corporations progressively, and transparency. Many economists..
8
Corporations are now purposes only for shareholders: i.e. The rich
As a result they make themselves as efficient as possible to pass on as much wealth as possible to shareholders
That means disemboweling labor and often times not investing in new ideas because they're risky. Companies no longer care about the American workforce. They used the trade deals to undermine American workers with cheap workers and factories abroad. Wealthy westerners did this to blue collared westerners. They're fully aware of the pros and cons of this approach. It's started in conservative think tanks and spread to the Democratic Party with the Clinton administration. They're many companies that pay out more to shareholders than they invest in themselves. In fact they're many companies that pay out so shareholders more than what they make in revenues: ultimately the shareholders feed on the company until it dies.
Labor won't do well with this mindset that came in during the 80s. They don't even report profit anymore: it's earning per share.
With this winner take all philosophy Americas middle class will die. The wealthy will own 90% of the country
If the country falls apart then they will simply move to another more stable country and repeat the process
Vampire capitalism
Income inequality
As a result they make themselves as efficient as possible to pass on as much wealth as possible to shareholders
That means disemboweling labor and often times not investing in new ideas because they're risky. Companies no longer care about the American workforce. They used the trade deals to undermine American workers with cheap workers and factories abroad. Wealthy westerners did this to blue collared westerners. They're fully aware of the pros and cons of this approach. It's started in conservative think tanks and spread to the Democratic Party with the Clinton administration. They're many companies that pay out more to shareholders than they invest in themselves. In fact they're many companies that pay out so shareholders more than what they make in revenues: ultimately the shareholders feed on the company until it dies.
Labor won't do well with this mindset that came in during the 80s. They don't even report profit anymore: it's earning per share.
With this winner take all philosophy Americas middle class will die. The wealthy will own 90% of the country
If the country falls apart then they will simply move to another more stable country and repeat the process
Vampire capitalism
Income inequality
4
Trade is a lot broader than many people realize. For example, the US financial system, for all its flaws, is seen as a safer and more trustworthy place than most others. This is due largely to the US legal and regulatory system. People from outside the US are willing to pay to use it.
The same thing could be said of the organizations that certify the organic status of fruits and vegetables, or the sustainability of meat and fish farming. Without the American legal system, etc., etc.
We need to move from a GDP-centric view of the economy to a quality-of-life view, and this requires a legal and financial technology that itself can be a significant export. The financializatuon of the economy is not uniformly bad. The rights of US intellectual property holders support much of the entertainment industry and more besides. And then there's software, which to be done well takes an education in abstract thought as well as just technique.
In fact, it's worth identifying the groups that consistently try to weaken America in these areas, or which oppose the fair dustribution of the revenue that they generate.
The same thing could be said of the organizations that certify the organic status of fruits and vegetables, or the sustainability of meat and fish farming. Without the American legal system, etc., etc.
We need to move from a GDP-centric view of the economy to a quality-of-life view, and this requires a legal and financial technology that itself can be a significant export. The financializatuon of the economy is not uniformly bad. The rights of US intellectual property holders support much of the entertainment industry and more besides. And then there's software, which to be done well takes an education in abstract thought as well as just technique.
In fact, it's worth identifying the groups that consistently try to weaken America in these areas, or which oppose the fair dustribution of the revenue that they generate.
1
You say: "We need to move from a GDP-centric view of the economy to a quality-of-life view". I think that is on the money. I think your example of legal and financial focus is too narrow however. The problems that interfere with our quality of life are far broader than this.
1
Western Democracies all pursue The Social Democratic Welfare State Model. The Model is admirable, and provided something for everyone. Getting to a end point requires by whatever means, eliminating inequality. Again admirable but that requires the wealth to be best managed by the state. The model does not address what we are experiencing, and that is an adjustment to our standard of living. Mitt Romney blew an election when he mentioned only 47% pay federal income tax. Affordable imports, so low wage earners can afford stuff, can only be accomplished if we trade with low wage partners, especially if benefit cost are not part of their income. Even with adjusted lower wages in the US, our benefit cost prevent us from being competitive. We can only export certain very high tech products, or processes part of digital technology. Low wage jurisdictions don't produce en mass or know little of marketing. Mu example is Apple either now 1 or 2 in market cap don't make any of their gadgets in North America, and 90 some odd percent of their income is in a tax shelter. Those few geeks who develop the software for their gadgets is a small % compared to the billions who buy their gadgets. Globalization may not have intended for these type circumstances but that is a off shoot of so called free trade.
Trade is the red herring of isolationists and monopoly-seeking commercial oligarchs. The real enemy is wealth inequality caused by greed, privilege and entitlements of the ruling classes, namely, the 1 % that has brainwashed some populations, especially U.S. citizens, into believing that laissez-faire capitalism enriches all strata of society.
When Reagan's own OMB Director, in fact the architect of Supply Side Economics, explained that Reaganomics was in fact "trickle down economics" designed to enrich the already rich, and when Bush Sr. referred to it as "voodoo economics" before selling his soul for the vice presidency, the writing should have been on the wall for all concerned U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately, the opposite occurred and all criticism was shouted down by politicians and the press referring to opponents derisively as 'socialists' and tax-and-spenders. Well, in Germany and northern Europe they tax wisely and spend wisely on education, infrastructure and retraining of the unemployed.
In the U.S. the focus is still on international trade and foreign threats that provide a great smokescreen for major domestic fault lines.
When Reagan's own OMB Director, in fact the architect of Supply Side Economics, explained that Reaganomics was in fact "trickle down economics" designed to enrich the already rich, and when Bush Sr. referred to it as "voodoo economics" before selling his soul for the vice presidency, the writing should have been on the wall for all concerned U.S. citizens.
Unfortunately, the opposite occurred and all criticism was shouted down by politicians and the press referring to opponents derisively as 'socialists' and tax-and-spenders. Well, in Germany and northern Europe they tax wisely and spend wisely on education, infrastructure and retraining of the unemployed.
In the U.S. the focus is still on international trade and foreign threats that provide a great smokescreen for major domestic fault lines.
2
When the government has the opportunity to launch a positive sum game that a trade treaty usually represents, they should do so, but the government is also responsible for facilitating a fair distribution of gains to its people. The consistent failure our government to accomplish this has contributed to the painfully top heavy distribution of wealth in this country.
Progressive taxation is essential, but so is the strategic investment of those funds to assure the benefit is felt by those who are losing in the free trade game.
How do we get the government to perform its duty when the mechanizations of trade are obscure to the American electorate and the politicians dumb it down to a matter of the fairness of the deals between nations?
The issue we should be focusing on is the fair distribution of the wealth created by free trade. Since the Reagan administration tax rates have been tilting vastly in favor of the investment class and the profits have been sliding into their pockets alone.
Progressive taxation is essential, but so is the strategic investment of those funds to assure the benefit is felt by those who are losing in the free trade game.
How do we get the government to perform its duty when the mechanizations of trade are obscure to the American electorate and the politicians dumb it down to a matter of the fairness of the deals between nations?
The issue we should be focusing on is the fair distribution of the wealth created by free trade. Since the Reagan administration tax rates have been tilting vastly in favor of the investment class and the profits have been sliding into their pockets alone.
2
A clever demagogue figures out what the problems of the electorate are and what the voters fear are causing those problems. The demagogue then plays on those fears, even if the fears are misplaced and the problems actually have other causes.
A clever politician also figures out what problems the voters face and what things they fear. The politician points out the real causes for the problems and tries to allay the fears. The politician offers a way to solve the problems and encourages the voters.
The demagogue sells simple, quick solutions. To the demagogue the success of the sale is all that matters, and the validity of the supposed solutions is irrelevant.
Donald Trump’s ignorance about international trade would, if he were elected, hurt America. We need to export goods and services, and in return we also need to import. By definition, we need trading partners.
Adjusting our trading relations and taking a strong, intelligent position about the practices of our trading partners in order to keep and create jobs at home – things which Hillary Clinton understands and supports – are necessary and doable.
A clever politician also figures out what problems the voters face and what things they fear. The politician points out the real causes for the problems and tries to allay the fears. The politician offers a way to solve the problems and encourages the voters.
The demagogue sells simple, quick solutions. To the demagogue the success of the sale is all that matters, and the validity of the supposed solutions is irrelevant.
Donald Trump’s ignorance about international trade would, if he were elected, hurt America. We need to export goods and services, and in return we also need to import. By definition, we need trading partners.
Adjusting our trading relations and taking a strong, intelligent position about the practices of our trading partners in order to keep and create jobs at home – things which Hillary Clinton understands and supports – are necessary and doable.
"trade is not the cause of all or even much of the wage stagnation or increased income inequality".
What an absurd statement.
Free trade and globalization were explicitly designed to be mechanisms to create wage stagnation and increased inequality, by driving down costs in order to grow profits.
The system is working exactly as designed, so destroying the American middle class wasn't a bug, it was a feature.
Increasing the supply of labor by adding billions of people virtually overnight who were willing to work for what would be considered slave wages here in the US has suppressed wages in all developed countries for decades.
And the profits generated by offshoring jobs were no longer "retained and reinvested". Instead they were distributed to shareholders and executives, in order to "maximize shareholder value", while millions upon millions upon millions of hard-working Americans were discarded with the morning trash.
And, by the way, the problem goes well beyond the manufacturing sector that the media focuses on.
The irony is that, in the future, free trade, done right as fair trade, will actually be the solution to many of the society-destabilizing problems that the flawed implementation of free trade and globalization of the past two decades has created.
After the revolution we'll need to re-architect the structure of trade so the shared benefits go beyond cheap shoes and shirts that fall apart after three washings.
What an absurd statement.
Free trade and globalization were explicitly designed to be mechanisms to create wage stagnation and increased inequality, by driving down costs in order to grow profits.
The system is working exactly as designed, so destroying the American middle class wasn't a bug, it was a feature.
Increasing the supply of labor by adding billions of people virtually overnight who were willing to work for what would be considered slave wages here in the US has suppressed wages in all developed countries for decades.
And the profits generated by offshoring jobs were no longer "retained and reinvested". Instead they were distributed to shareholders and executives, in order to "maximize shareholder value", while millions upon millions upon millions of hard-working Americans were discarded with the morning trash.
And, by the way, the problem goes well beyond the manufacturing sector that the media focuses on.
The irony is that, in the future, free trade, done right as fair trade, will actually be the solution to many of the society-destabilizing problems that the flawed implementation of free trade and globalization of the past two decades has created.
After the revolution we'll need to re-architect the structure of trade so the shared benefits go beyond cheap shoes and shirts that fall apart after three washings.
3
Every American should acquaint themselves with a few facts:
- The relative delta between the wage for an American and the wage for a person from another country capable of performing the same function, net of transportation costs to bring the product to market.
- The relative education level of countries aspiring to take on knowledge tasks that can be handled through technology and do not require transportation to bring the service to market.
- The level of retirement benefits expected by each employee or employer in America relative to a worker in a foreign country.
- The relative level of corporate taxation for a company HQ in US versus in another nation that is capable of providing high quality support and security for those executives stationed there.
- The level of medical coverage provided to Americans, and passed on to employers as co-sponsors, versus the level of coverage expected in countries with whom we are competing in the labor markets.
- The value of the American Dollar and the level of federal debt, particularly in light of future interest rates (hard to go much lower, likely to be higher at some indeterminate level).
If we cannot have clear and open "economics and trade for dummies" discussions with our citizens, they will make poor decisions when choosing their leaders.
It has as much to do with Trump as it does with Sanders. Politicians would rather kick the problem down the road, win the election, and come up with an excuse after the "plan" fails.
- The relative delta between the wage for an American and the wage for a person from another country capable of performing the same function, net of transportation costs to bring the product to market.
- The relative education level of countries aspiring to take on knowledge tasks that can be handled through technology and do not require transportation to bring the service to market.
- The level of retirement benefits expected by each employee or employer in America relative to a worker in a foreign country.
- The relative level of corporate taxation for a company HQ in US versus in another nation that is capable of providing high quality support and security for those executives stationed there.
- The level of medical coverage provided to Americans, and passed on to employers as co-sponsors, versus the level of coverage expected in countries with whom we are competing in the labor markets.
- The value of the American Dollar and the level of federal debt, particularly in light of future interest rates (hard to go much lower, likely to be higher at some indeterminate level).
If we cannot have clear and open "economics and trade for dummies" discussions with our citizens, they will make poor decisions when choosing their leaders.
It has as much to do with Trump as it does with Sanders. Politicians would rather kick the problem down the road, win the election, and come up with an excuse after the "plan" fails.
1
Stuart: Blame politicians by all means. What about the voters? Who elects the politicians? Who tolerates and defends a constitution that gives a House Rep only two years to raise money for the next election?
International trade creates and sustains good-paying jobs and provides rich shopping experiences for people with communications and technical skills living in vibrant communities. Trade restrictions would degrade the lifestyles of most Americans.
International trade restrictions would not foster job growth for people with low skills who persist in living in defunct communities. The types of tedious, hazardous jobs that once supported those communities don’t exist anymore. Steel is no longer produced by labor-intensive methods. Coal is being phased out in favor of cleaner energy sources. The production of saleable widgets and gadgets requires nimble capital investment and flexible labor, which are contrary to American customs and regulations.
International competition in the production of low-cost, high-quality goods best serves American workers and consumers. Americans seeking jobs in communities with high unemployment should follow the example of their children by moving to a more salubrious area. Those who stay behind should be content to serve the economy as efficient convertors of excess capital to consumer demand, by spending their welfare income at the local Walmart.
International trade restrictions would not foster job growth for people with low skills who persist in living in defunct communities. The types of tedious, hazardous jobs that once supported those communities don’t exist anymore. Steel is no longer produced by labor-intensive methods. Coal is being phased out in favor of cleaner energy sources. The production of saleable widgets and gadgets requires nimble capital investment and flexible labor, which are contrary to American customs and regulations.
International competition in the production of low-cost, high-quality goods best serves American workers and consumers. Americans seeking jobs in communities with high unemployment should follow the example of their children by moving to a more salubrious area. Those who stay behind should be content to serve the economy as efficient convertors of excess capital to consumer demand, by spending their welfare income at the local Walmart.
The article suggests that automation has eliminated jobs, and that is a more important factor than trade. That is not accurate.
As a single example, the semiconductor manufacturing industry has been transferred to the Far East: Korea, China, Taiwan, etc. A single factory is a $10 billion investment. It includes thousands of employees with various degrees of skill. The transfer of manufacture brings with it the transfer of manufacturing research and development, because solving chip issues requires understanding of the manufacture and close communication. So, today, Samsung is more innovative than Apple and sells more phones, even though Apple has outsourced its manufacture to the Far East.
This export of jobs and skills to low-wage countries will bring their economies forward, but it depresses our own and is a major and continuing cause of economic stagnation within the USA. It is not a consequence of automation or trade agreements, but of the general equalization of economies across the billions that inhabit the Earth.
As a single example, the semiconductor manufacturing industry has been transferred to the Far East: Korea, China, Taiwan, etc. A single factory is a $10 billion investment. It includes thousands of employees with various degrees of skill. The transfer of manufacture brings with it the transfer of manufacturing research and development, because solving chip issues requires understanding of the manufacture and close communication. So, today, Samsung is more innovative than Apple and sells more phones, even though Apple has outsourced its manufacture to the Far East.
This export of jobs and skills to low-wage countries will bring their economies forward, but it depresses our own and is a major and continuing cause of economic stagnation within the USA. It is not a consequence of automation or trade agreements, but of the general equalization of economies across the billions that inhabit the Earth.
4
Glad to see a voice raised in defense of the reality of a global economy. Candidates are bashing the trade deals of the last quarter century, but global competition destroyed some American industries (many light industries in upstate New York and New England, for example) decades before the more recent agreements. Trade is a reality. That won't make much of an impression on the GOP anti-fact party, but Democrats, with a tradition of upholding the safety net, should realize that the problem is not trade, but how we adapt to it. Compensate for lost jobs by creating new jobs at home with huge infrastructure projects. Support industries that can remain competitive. Provide more support for education and training. Ensure that communities hard hit by the loss of key industries receive the support needed to re-create a healthy and diversified local economy. Support unions and labor practices that ensure that when workers move from manufacturing to other jobs, they don't see their pay and benefits vanish. Make sure corporations give back some of the profits of global trade in taxes. Nearly all of those things could be done outside the trade agreements. It would be much better for our political dialogue and national psyche if we were _for_something, like becoming and remaining competitive in a global economy, than _against_ something, like trade. Particularly since being against trade is a bit like being against the sunset. It's going to happen whether you like or not.
2
The Editorial Board is correct that Trade is not the problem with poor global economic performance. The problem is that technology including software is decimating the need for human labor. For instance software developers have created algorithmic programs in which a company of 10 people can perform the work of 10,000. They then monetize that effort and the former income of 10,000 now flow to only 10. The technology industry has been able to avoid responsibility for destroying the need for human labor by claiming improvements in "productivity". However those benefits in productivity do not accrue to workers or to the tax base. Global trade is the straw man in evaluating declining global growth; relentless technological innovation by an elite few with uber coding skills, including those developing Artificial Intelligence, are the real bogeyman.
4
American economic trade deals since WW2?
It would appear since WW2 and birth of catastrophic weaponry, increased population, gradually increasing multipolarity of power (nations, blocs, etc.) that the advanced nations such as the U.S. have not only been seeking to increase security and economic functioning by transferring jobs overseas or having workers overseas "participate" by being associated with their companies, they have increased this security and economic interdependence at if not large expense to the lower classes in their nations, in such a way that the lower classes will be the first to pay rising price that might issue from this interdependence.
Certainly it is the weaker and lower members of a nation who are hurt first when jobs go overseas to "increase economy and security". The higher classes increase their economic well being and security at expense of own people. Worse, with increase of automation it is as if a message is clearly sent that lower classes in advanced nations really are not only not necessary at all, power is strong enough to proceed with impunity against own people.
To put it bluntly in America, apparently the higher classes in America feel entrenched enough, protected, that they can play quite freely with the lower classes. The point is not what in particular is hurting the American economy, but that all the things pointed out have in common actions which if having expense are at expense of the most vulnerable people in society.
It would appear since WW2 and birth of catastrophic weaponry, increased population, gradually increasing multipolarity of power (nations, blocs, etc.) that the advanced nations such as the U.S. have not only been seeking to increase security and economic functioning by transferring jobs overseas or having workers overseas "participate" by being associated with their companies, they have increased this security and economic interdependence at if not large expense to the lower classes in their nations, in such a way that the lower classes will be the first to pay rising price that might issue from this interdependence.
Certainly it is the weaker and lower members of a nation who are hurt first when jobs go overseas to "increase economy and security". The higher classes increase their economic well being and security at expense of own people. Worse, with increase of automation it is as if a message is clearly sent that lower classes in advanced nations really are not only not necessary at all, power is strong enough to proceed with impunity against own people.
To put it bluntly in America, apparently the higher classes in America feel entrenched enough, protected, that they can play quite freely with the lower classes. The point is not what in particular is hurting the American economy, but that all the things pointed out have in common actions which if having expense are at expense of the most vulnerable people in society.
1
Rage against trade, against immigrants and against corporations is a symptom of a real and present danger -- the over four decade decline in worker purchasing power. The nomination for president of a demagogue by a major party for the first time in our history should be sufficient to warn us that our noble democratic experiment is now at risk. Just picture how angry and irrational workers will be after the an overdue recession takes them down another notch before the 2020 election.
Restoring worker wage-based purchasing power should be job one of our new administration. Start with raising the minimum wage to $15/hr, but a permanent fix will require reducing corporate profits from their present 10% of sales to the 5% that existed during our "golden" economic period from 1948 to 1973 and returning the excess in the form of increased payrolls.
The oligarch's will ultimately choose to sacrifice half a loaf, 5%, or end up with the crumbs of collapse and facing the rise of a new age of demagogues.
Restoring worker wage-based purchasing power should be job one of our new administration. Start with raising the minimum wage to $15/hr, but a permanent fix will require reducing corporate profits from their present 10% of sales to the 5% that existed during our "golden" economic period from 1948 to 1973 and returning the excess in the form of increased payrolls.
The oligarch's will ultimately choose to sacrifice half a loaf, 5%, or end up with the crumbs of collapse and facing the rise of a new age of demagogues.
Increasing purchasing power is a chimera. For example, raising wages so we can buy more soap or cars is not what we need. We need reorientation toward improving American lives, and wages and purchasing power are poor tools to achieve those ends.
If the problem is not trade, but automation or something else, or a combination of things, then fine. Let's address the jobs impacts of these things, and address the government revenue impact, and the inpact on wealth accumulation, whatever the causes. There is no doubt we could address the impacts on the population from changes in the economy, but we have to be willing to address it as opposed to blaming each other for the effects of global and technological forces beyond the control of individuals. One problem with addressing the real needs through policy is that the Republican party had spent the last 40 years demonizing those left out of economic growth as moochers, takers, and welfare queens, and saying it is their fault. Policies that would help would be robust, publicly funded efforts to retrain and relocate workers from where the work was to where the work is. Beyond that, the work that is so prevalent today (service sector) needs to pay much, much better than it does. We need a much higher federal minimum wage. If a business can't afford to pay its workers enough to keep them functional, it can't afford to stay in business. And finally, it is high time we had universal health care. It would be cheaper and would vastly improve our education system by ensuring that kids come to school ready to learn, and it would relieve a lot of the nightmare of job loss/retraining. We probably don't need less trade, but rather much better policy responses to its negative effects.
So much of America's vibrant middle class came about as a consequence of WWII. The foundation of the national prosperity was built upon a shattered global economy that offered no serious competition for decades. Additionally, the GI bill created an army of well educated scientists, engineers, and doctors that continually created opportunities for the creation of well paying manufacturing jobs.
Even as the rest of the world got back on its feet following WWII, the U.S. had built up such a lead, that forward momentum continued until the early seventies. Real competition, first from Japan, and later from the rest of the world caught U.S. companies off guard. Without the freedom born of a lack of international competition, the only way companies could continue to churn out record profits was by downsizing its workforce, and then using illusion of "free trade" to move production to countries with ridiculously low labor costs.
Executives, and wealthy shareholders continued to reap huge profits, while American workers experienced the greatest devaluation of labor since the beginning of civilization. Yes, the U.S. consumer did gain access to cheap TV sets, VCR's, and dress shirts, but for many workers who could no longer find good paying work, the benefits were ultimately a wash.
The TPP is just another bit of economic sleight of hand, that will permit entrenched interests to open new avenues of profit at its citizen's expense. Look for it to pass in the lame duck.
Even as the rest of the world got back on its feet following WWII, the U.S. had built up such a lead, that forward momentum continued until the early seventies. Real competition, first from Japan, and later from the rest of the world caught U.S. companies off guard. Without the freedom born of a lack of international competition, the only way companies could continue to churn out record profits was by downsizing its workforce, and then using illusion of "free trade" to move production to countries with ridiculously low labor costs.
Executives, and wealthy shareholders continued to reap huge profits, while American workers experienced the greatest devaluation of labor since the beginning of civilization. Yes, the U.S. consumer did gain access to cheap TV sets, VCR's, and dress shirts, but for many workers who could no longer find good paying work, the benefits were ultimately a wash.
The TPP is just another bit of economic sleight of hand, that will permit entrenched interests to open new avenues of profit at its citizen's expense. Look for it to pass in the lame duck.
Trade is a scapegoat for the nation's ills just as the affluent are a scapegoat in the minds of some liberals.
Going back to Ricardo's idea of "comparative advantage". the idea of trade is that each country can produce what it does most efficiently and trade for the rest. Consider farming. Due to our fertile land, only 2% of Americans are needed to work on the farms. This efficiency allows America to be a net exporter of its food. Likewise, we import labor heavy products such as clothing.
"There are winners and losers". This was likewise recognized at the time of Ricardo. Though cold, the idea was that the worker displaced by trade would endure a finite loss while the economy would benefit permanently. Of course, there are political aspects as well. As the article points out Dems support trade to a greater extent. However, many of the core Democratic groups are relatively insensitive to trade - e.g. education, government, etc.
America fondly remembers the halcyon days of the 1950's and 1960's when the economy grew strongly and workers could earn a good living even without an education. High union costs could be passed on to consumers. But this was an aberration caused by much of global production severely curtailed by WWII. America was the only game in town.
This is no longer true. It's time to stop the scapegoats. To succeed, Americans will need to strengthen our education and families in order to provide value added services which pay well.
Going back to Ricardo's idea of "comparative advantage". the idea of trade is that each country can produce what it does most efficiently and trade for the rest. Consider farming. Due to our fertile land, only 2% of Americans are needed to work on the farms. This efficiency allows America to be a net exporter of its food. Likewise, we import labor heavy products such as clothing.
"There are winners and losers". This was likewise recognized at the time of Ricardo. Though cold, the idea was that the worker displaced by trade would endure a finite loss while the economy would benefit permanently. Of course, there are political aspects as well. As the article points out Dems support trade to a greater extent. However, many of the core Democratic groups are relatively insensitive to trade - e.g. education, government, etc.
America fondly remembers the halcyon days of the 1950's and 1960's when the economy grew strongly and workers could earn a good living even without an education. High union costs could be passed on to consumers. But this was an aberration caused by much of global production severely curtailed by WWII. America was the only game in town.
This is no longer true. It's time to stop the scapegoats. To succeed, Americans will need to strengthen our education and families in order to provide value added services which pay well.
2
You say: "Americans will need to strengthen our education and families in order to provide value added services which pay well."
The switch to "value-added services" is important, but is not part of most business models. Even service oriented businesses, like brokerage firms, fail to see their service as their business, but regard it as simply the vehicle they happen to use to make money. A switch from money-making to making a living by service-providing seems to be a cultural disconnect today.
The switch to "value-added services" is important, but is not part of most business models. Even service oriented businesses, like brokerage firms, fail to see their service as their business, but regard it as simply the vehicle they happen to use to make money. A switch from money-making to making a living by service-providing seems to be a cultural disconnect today.
1
Donald Trump and a lot of others are thinking of tariffs the wrong way, I think. Unless they are extremely high (20%, 30%, 50%) they're not going to keep companies from trading or exporting jobs. And if they are that high, tariffs could induce other countries to impose similar tariffs that would do real damage to our economy.
.
But why not much lower, broad based tariffs whose revenue can be used to make America more competitive? In 2014, American imports totaled $2.19 trillion. An across the board tariff of 1% would have raised $21.9 billion in revenue. And it would have been relatively painless: the tariff on a $30,000 imported car would come to only $300. That's money that could have been used to help rebuild infrastructure, or repurpose defunct factories, or expand broadband to rural areas, or pay for community college degrees for laid off workers....
.
Hillary has a much better answer on tariffs and trade deals, but I hope she enforces it. To do so she could adopt a "wait and see" approach to deals like the TPP. US ratification can wait until trade partners (China in particular) actually make good on the environmental, labor, currency, and other fair trade agreements that are part of the deals. If they continue to manipulate their currency or force companies like Uber out of their country, trade deals like the TPP could be delayed.
.
But why not much lower, broad based tariffs whose revenue can be used to make America more competitive? In 2014, American imports totaled $2.19 trillion. An across the board tariff of 1% would have raised $21.9 billion in revenue. And it would have been relatively painless: the tariff on a $30,000 imported car would come to only $300. That's money that could have been used to help rebuild infrastructure, or repurpose defunct factories, or expand broadband to rural areas, or pay for community college degrees for laid off workers....
.
Hillary has a much better answer on tariffs and trade deals, but I hope she enforces it. To do so she could adopt a "wait and see" approach to deals like the TPP. US ratification can wait until trade partners (China in particular) actually make good on the environmental, labor, currency, and other fair trade agreements that are part of the deals. If they continue to manipulate their currency or force companies like Uber out of their country, trade deals like the TPP could be delayed.
1
Outsourcing and offshoring cost America jobs because of wage competition. The cost and benefits of trade are more complicated. Trump has argued that we're making bad trade agreements because of weak leadership, which is a gross oversimplification that nonetheless sells. Clinton makes a logical response -- add terms to the agreements that will benefit our side. But the proposed terms strike me as absurd -- require Bangladesh, for example, to improve their labor and environmental standards and to stabilize their currency. You could require Bangladesh to lead the way in climate change and to double the pay of their workers, and U.S. factories still couldn't compete.
Trump has identified a problem that most Americans care about -- the loss of jobs overseas. And even though his trade argument misses the main issue, it appeals to the middle class. Clinton, according to this essay wants to micromanage a partial response. Bad strategy. A losing approach in the debates. Clinton needs somebody to tell her that the point of this election is to win, not to present arguments proposed by pointy-headed economists that convince many that she is in left field while Trump has his finger on the pulse of the middle class.
Trump has identified a problem that most Americans care about -- the loss of jobs overseas. And even though his trade argument misses the main issue, it appeals to the middle class. Clinton, according to this essay wants to micromanage a partial response. Bad strategy. A losing approach in the debates. Clinton needs somebody to tell her that the point of this election is to win, not to present arguments proposed by pointy-headed economists that convince many that she is in left field while Trump has his finger on the pulse of the middle class.
1
The flow of high-skilled jobs to foreign countries is inevitable, because money and information can go anywhere. A phenomenon like Silicon Valley is pretty complex, an interconnected culture that is harder to export. However, even that can be accomplished, and to a large degree has been because the export of manufacture tends to drag research and development with it. That happens because the problems involved in advancing technology can't be understood in a vacuum, but require close contact with the plants that have the problems.
1
Notice that Germany is not opposed to trade deals, and has instead prospered thanks to them. The reason: German has a Value Added Tax (VAT) and the U.S. does not.
If a German company outsources German jobs to China in order to take advantage of cheaper Chinese labor its profits will increase. When it sells its products in Germany it will have to pay VAT to Germany, which can be used to retrain displaced German workers and improve the German infrastructure and social safety net.
When an American company outsources American jobs it, like the German company, also has the incentive of cheaper labor. But when it sells its products in the U.S. it, for all intents and purposes and unlike the German company, does not pay a single dollar in taxes. That also means that it has more funds available to finance further outsourcing of jobs.
European companies pay taxes to the countries where they sell their products. American companies selling products in the US pay taxes to the countries where they are based, which have very low tax rates.
As American jobs are outsourced the purchasing power of American consumers is reduced. American companies that have not outsourced production find themselves with a smaller market and increased competition from the companies which have outsourced. Their only alternative is to outsource their production themselves. It is a vicious circle whose results we are seeing in this political campaign.
If a German company outsources German jobs to China in order to take advantage of cheaper Chinese labor its profits will increase. When it sells its products in Germany it will have to pay VAT to Germany, which can be used to retrain displaced German workers and improve the German infrastructure and social safety net.
When an American company outsources American jobs it, like the German company, also has the incentive of cheaper labor. But when it sells its products in the U.S. it, for all intents and purposes and unlike the German company, does not pay a single dollar in taxes. That also means that it has more funds available to finance further outsourcing of jobs.
European companies pay taxes to the countries where they sell their products. American companies selling products in the US pay taxes to the countries where they are based, which have very low tax rates.
As American jobs are outsourced the purchasing power of American consumers is reduced. American companies that have not outsourced production find themselves with a smaller market and increased competition from the companies which have outsourced. Their only alternative is to outsource their production themselves. It is a vicious circle whose results we are seeing in this political campaign.
3
Clearly automation has resulted in job losses. The swing from coal to cleaner energy has also cost jobs. Down through history, increases in efficiency have put people out of work. The adoption of agriculture ended the life-style of hunter-gatherers and drove them into cities often to live in poverty. This has continued into the present. In India, for example, as many as 400 million farmers and family members are to be displaced. It's estimated than 40,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide since 2000, driven to desperation by government policies. The Chinese government has decreed that 250 million people are to be moved off the land and into cities.
So it is abroad. The scale may be different here, but chronic lack of planning has given us cities with great poverty. Laissez faire indeed! Let the rich do as they wish, let the weak founder, and blame someone else. We're better than that... at least I used to think so. But in reviewing the policies of the GOP and their stunted "ideologies," I no longer expect anything resembling enlightened self-interest--never mind compassion--from them. I expect them to blame others and to concoct whatever lies suit their accusations.
So it is abroad. The scale may be different here, but chronic lack of planning has given us cities with great poverty. Laissez faire indeed! Let the rich do as they wish, let the weak founder, and blame someone else. We're better than that... at least I used to think so. But in reviewing the policies of the GOP and their stunted "ideologies," I no longer expect anything resembling enlightened self-interest--never mind compassion--from them. I expect them to blame others and to concoct whatever lies suit their accusations.
120
The problems you mention have not been solved, not only because the rich are indifferent to them because they are "other peoples' problems", but because the solutions involve many belts and gears, and systemic issues require organization on a grand scale that business cannot cope with. Unfortunately, government can't cope either - it has the tools to do it, but government is run by incompetents that haven't the mental equipment to attack the issues. There is rub - how to get competency at the controls.
1
Automation, electricity and robots have clearly changed the manufacturing world. Skilled laborers are needed not to build airplanes, but to be experts who can build robots which build airplanes. Trade agreements have not done away with the old "good paying" manufacturing jobs.
As you say, "Laissez faire indeed!" As well as compassion and enlightened self-interest, we need new constructive ways to spend our time.
As you say, "Laissez faire indeed!" As well as compassion and enlightened self-interest, we need new constructive ways to spend our time.
Neogiated in confidence, the TPP has become a catch-all scapegoat for US economic ills and those for or against the TTP miss its important groundbreaking features.
A debate should be conducted over US trade policy—the hard details of how it is regulated, funded, protected, expanded, promoted and opened to small businesses in the global environment. But what is the real connection between trade, corporations,and jobs? Does trade move jobs?
US corporations shift manufacturing and assembly jobs offshore; the TPP does not stop or accelerate this trend--only a change in domestic business regulation will end it.
The TPP supports American labor in two ways: it cuts more than 18,000 taxes on American-made products, raising demand for American goods by lowering costs. The TPP also is the first global agreement to require standards for wages and working conditions; it prohibits forced labor and child labor, extreme hours and mandates safety and health standards. It allows any signatory nation to contest violations by other nations. Only 4 countries currently have such an agreement, the TPP adds 10 countries, among the worst offenders.
Why care about international labor? Because labor wages improve as the bottom is raised. Raising the bottom actually makes the US more completive: US skills add greater value.
If the trade provisions of the TPP are bad, its labor provisions are a good start for future progress and help secure American jobs. These provisions should be saved.
A debate should be conducted over US trade policy—the hard details of how it is regulated, funded, protected, expanded, promoted and opened to small businesses in the global environment. But what is the real connection between trade, corporations,and jobs? Does trade move jobs?
US corporations shift manufacturing and assembly jobs offshore; the TPP does not stop or accelerate this trend--only a change in domestic business regulation will end it.
The TPP supports American labor in two ways: it cuts more than 18,000 taxes on American-made products, raising demand for American goods by lowering costs. The TPP also is the first global agreement to require standards for wages and working conditions; it prohibits forced labor and child labor, extreme hours and mandates safety and health standards. It allows any signatory nation to contest violations by other nations. Only 4 countries currently have such an agreement, the TPP adds 10 countries, among the worst offenders.
Why care about international labor? Because labor wages improve as the bottom is raised. Raising the bottom actually makes the US more completive: US skills add greater value.
If the trade provisions of the TPP are bad, its labor provisions are a good start for future progress and help secure American jobs. These provisions should be saved.
23
While not perfect by any means (each nation determines its own standards, the labor provisions are an important first step to addressing global labor inequities being structurally maintained by national boundaries. An ingenuous design allows other countries to cite violations, adding a check and balance to watchdog monitoring (although the nations might mutually collude to ignore violations!), and it gives the US an agreed path of dispute resolution regarding foreign labor violations.
Without change internationally, US wages will remain low. The economy doesn't grow from the middle out (Obama's mis-directed slogan), butfrom the bottom up (validated by history). Good paying middle class jobs depend upon strong wage growth in the bottom tier!
Without change internationally, US wages will remain low. The economy doesn't grow from the middle out (Obama's mis-directed slogan), butfrom the bottom up (validated by history). Good paying middle class jobs depend upon strong wage growth in the bottom tier!
3
Walter and the writer of the editorial left out a majo negative of the TTP that should make it a no-go for the US. The agreement allows foreign corporations to sue the US government if it believes that US regulations of any kind will possibly lessen the projected profits of their business, Such suits are to be ajudicated by an interational board/committee yet to be formed or determined.
Other points sluffed over in the editorial:
1. 600 US corporate representatives were allowed to read, improve and otherwise participate in the writing of TTP.
US ELECTED officials were allowed to read it only after its completion. The reading took was in a guarded, secured room with no recording devices of any kind allowed and each senator/house representative signing a lawsuit proof NDA.
2. This article says: "there are real problems with trade agreements as Hillary Clinton and her former rival Senator Bernie Sanders have pointed out". Hillary pointed out problems AFTER she saw the great response Bernie Sanders recieved for doing so (as he had done before the primary run-up). She blatantly and with no reason given, flip-flopped on TTP, which she had perviously and publically touted as "the gold standard of trade agreements."
NYTimes, you are getting less and less worth reading what with mis-information rife in articles, and other pieces, hours if not days late with US and International news, and filling pages by republishing the same articles and columns day after day,
Other points sluffed over in the editorial:
1. 600 US corporate representatives were allowed to read, improve and otherwise participate in the writing of TTP.
US ELECTED officials were allowed to read it only after its completion. The reading took was in a guarded, secured room with no recording devices of any kind allowed and each senator/house representative signing a lawsuit proof NDA.
2. This article says: "there are real problems with trade agreements as Hillary Clinton and her former rival Senator Bernie Sanders have pointed out". Hillary pointed out problems AFTER she saw the great response Bernie Sanders recieved for doing so (as he had done before the primary run-up). She blatantly and with no reason given, flip-flopped on TTP, which she had perviously and publically touted as "the gold standard of trade agreements."
NYTimes, you are getting less and less worth reading what with mis-information rife in articles, and other pieces, hours if not days late with US and International news, and filling pages by republishing the same articles and columns day after day,
2
The environmental communities objection to the TPP is its primacy over environmental regulations and laws. If an environmental issue causes a company to lose some business it can sue for compensation.
We have already seen this with the Canadian pipeline issue. The TPP has to have environmental protections, it has to put our environmental laws and regulations above its other provisions.
Almost all economists left and right agree trade is good for the economy. In some cases like the steel industry, jobs went to Japan and Korea due to lousy upper fossilized management, Other like Walmart prospered due to consumers buying the cheapest lowest quality goods they could find. Those same consumers are some of the loudest complainers about trade.
We have already seen this with the Canadian pipeline issue. The TPP has to have environmental protections, it has to put our environmental laws and regulations above its other provisions.
Almost all economists left and right agree trade is good for the economy. In some cases like the steel industry, jobs went to Japan and Korea due to lousy upper fossilized management, Other like Walmart prospered due to consumers buying the cheapest lowest quality goods they could find. Those same consumers are some of the loudest complainers about trade.
43
in reply to David Underwood:
We lost our steel production when we built Japanese steel plants after WWII and then Japan subsidized their steel industry allowing them to sell steel at a lower rate. We also lost our steel manufacturing when our Congress decided that we should not help the steel industry by giving them money to upgrade their decaying plants or to subsidize them to be able to compete.
I grew up between two of the big steel corporations McClouth, and Great Lakes Steel. A lot of my friend's fathers worked there.
We lost our steel production when we built Japanese steel plants after WWII and then Japan subsidized their steel industry allowing them to sell steel at a lower rate. We also lost our steel manufacturing when our Congress decided that we should not help the steel industry by giving them money to upgrade their decaying plants or to subsidize them to be able to compete.
I grew up between two of the big steel corporations McClouth, and Great Lakes Steel. A lot of my friend's fathers worked there.
2
David, here in Europe we are uncertain about Round Up, far more than energy, as that is settled for the moment. As a card-carrying economist, we are terrible at identifying the inevitable losers, & trying to work something out with them. Yes, I have Ivy League & West Coast elite degrees, so let's stop the foolin' around. Mr. Trumps supporters say the same, as do the Brexiters in the UK.
My understanding of the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP is that it contains provisions that could hurt consumers as well as American workers. These include: (1) an extension of patent protection for new drugs developed by pharmaceutical companies, which would deny patients the availability of lower-cost generic drugs and create a de facto cartel of the largest companies in this sector; (2) a tribunal that would hold countries accountable if profits expected by foreign investors within the TPP were not achieved due to government actions such as raising the minimum wage or tightening environmental regulations, what amounts to infringement on national sovereignty not unlike the "treaty system" imposed on China and other Asian countries in the 19th century; and (3) an ill-concealed attempt, especially by the United States and Japan, to create a trading bloc of "friendly" nations that would "contain" Chinese economic power. President Obama has stated that if the US and its partners don't accept the TPP, "China will write the rules" on trade - though it is unclear from what he says how exactly that would happen. In any event, mixing trade with geopolitics rarely brings beneficial consequences for anyone.
At least, the TPP accord should be fundamentally revised, so that all its consequences do not benefit corporate interests or geopolitics-happy pundits in Washington and Tokyo.
At least, the TPP accord should be fundamentally revised, so that all its consequences do not benefit corporate interests or geopolitics-happy pundits in Washington and Tokyo.
93
Totally agree on those three points We should no more go to economic war with China, than we should let the pharma rake in eternal profits or deny each county the authority of its own courts. This is the neo-liberal elitism at its worst.
There's nothing wrong with trade.
But the "trade" agreements that generate rage are less about trade than about unregulated capital, and about the erosion of national laws and regulations. Under agreements like NAFTA and the TPP, a multinational corporation can sue a national or regional government for loss of potential profits if it doesn't like some environmental, safety of labor regulation. Further, such a suit must be submitted not to a proper court of law but to a private tribunal whose "judges" are drawn from the same pool of multinationals of which the plaintiff is part. This elevates the power of corporations and usurps that of governments.
So, The "Rage Against Trade" is not against trade. It's about a system of unregulated capital that adds to the pressure workers and communities face from rapidly advancing technology.
But the "trade" agreements that generate rage are less about trade than about unregulated capital, and about the erosion of national laws and regulations. Under agreements like NAFTA and the TPP, a multinational corporation can sue a national or regional government for loss of potential profits if it doesn't like some environmental, safety of labor regulation. Further, such a suit must be submitted not to a proper court of law but to a private tribunal whose "judges" are drawn from the same pool of multinationals of which the plaintiff is part. This elevates the power of corporations and usurps that of governments.
So, The "Rage Against Trade" is not against trade. It's about a system of unregulated capital that adds to the pressure workers and communities face from rapidly advancing technology.
284
The problem is that when factories shutter in the States, it is usually to find cheaper labor, either in the State or abroad. Detroit has the same tech as we do in Germany, & our Asian neighbors. Yet the plants close.
With regard to office & retail jobs, it is indeed true that tech rules.
Germany imports a lot of its automotive sub-systems from the eastern EU nations, where labor is as much as 25% of what it is here. There older technologies make sense, given the the low cost of labor.
At my local gym near Frankfurt, I have middle level managers forced out of jobs in their early 50's. However, they have sustainable retirements.
With regard to office & retail jobs, it is indeed true that tech rules.
Germany imports a lot of its automotive sub-systems from the eastern EU nations, where labor is as much as 25% of what it is here. There older technologies make sense, given the the low cost of labor.
At my local gym near Frankfurt, I have middle level managers forced out of jobs in their early 50's. However, they have sustainable retirements.
The net loss in manufacturing jobs from 2000 to 2014 is 5 million. If the multiplier for each manufacturing job is 3 then the total job loss from trade is 15 million jobs. That's a lot of jobs. And when you then consider that a loss in manufacturing jobs results in long term losses in engineering and research, then the loss is worse, and when the losses in tax revenue are factored in, even worse. The offshoring of manufacturing was solely for higher shareholder rate of return; the promised peace and prosperity from 'free trade' was just a story to calm the rubes. Well now the rubes are on to the scam (kind of) and are restless. Did the financial elite that runs this country think they could grab ever bigger pieces of the pie from everyone else and not expect trouble? Hopefully the insurgent campaigns of Sanders and Trump, and now the catastrophic prospect of a Trump presidency should serve as a wake up call, to these elites and their hired enablers in the government, the media and academia.
155
The problem is not trade in the general sense, but trade as it is actually conducted by the elites in this country. The 'free trade' they extol to the rest of us, profits only them at the expense of everyone else. This maldistribution of the benefits from 'free trade' is what is harming everyone else, and now creating instability. The elites should realize that 3rd world levels of inequality will create 3rd world levels of instability and corruption, as the success of the Trump candidacy evidences. The surprise of the elites at the Trump insurgency indicates how out of touch they are with the nightmare their 'free trade' policy is creating for most people.
123
I understand that trade is important for peace (nobody wants to bomb their customer or debtor) but the 'free trade' practiced by our elites only serves them, impoverishes most of us, and thereby creates the instability that threatens everyone.
70
Absolutely excellent, Walkman. Multipliers in employment & spending are really important. Add to this that US firms don't pay taxes on income generated abroad, until they are repatriated -- which may be never since they can be invested abroad, & that patients/trade marks, etc can be allocated to a wholly-owned subsidiary abroad, then you see the temptations.
It is said that Daimler pays no taxes in its homeland, but with low unemployment nationally & a good social support system, at least the Germans are not completely disregarding their citizens. But the Brits really have a lot complainers, as in America, as you know.
It is said that Daimler pays no taxes in its homeland, but with low unemployment nationally & a good social support system, at least the Germans are not completely disregarding their citizens. But the Brits really have a lot complainers, as in America, as you know.
No one is opposed to trade. Trade is good.
But what the NT Times now calls "trade" because people who work for a living have figured out that "free trade," which "trade" used to be before the NY Times started trying to rebrand it, is a scam.
What the NY Times calls "trade" exports jobs from countries where workers used to be paid a living wage to locales where workers are desperate enough to accept crumbs. This works very well for those readers of the NY Times who buy the $50,000 watches that it advertises, but for everybody else not so much. Everybody knows what "trade" amounts to. It's called the race to bottom. People working for a pittance in poor countries means workers in wealthy countries have to work for a pittance, too, or watch their job go overseas as well. An no unions. And no social services. And no taxes for corporations or the rich.
My subscription to this newspaper will expire on Aug. 14. I will be cancelling the day before.
"Trade." What a joke.
But what the NT Times now calls "trade" because people who work for a living have figured out that "free trade," which "trade" used to be before the NY Times started trying to rebrand it, is a scam.
What the NY Times calls "trade" exports jobs from countries where workers used to be paid a living wage to locales where workers are desperate enough to accept crumbs. This works very well for those readers of the NY Times who buy the $50,000 watches that it advertises, but for everybody else not so much. Everybody knows what "trade" amounts to. It's called the race to bottom. People working for a pittance in poor countries means workers in wealthy countries have to work for a pittance, too, or watch their job go overseas as well. An no unions. And no social services. And no taxes for corporations or the rich.
My subscription to this newspaper will expire on Aug. 14. I will be cancelling the day before.
"Trade." What a joke.
238
@Bill Appeldorf
"Race to the bottom."
Bill, did you take an economics course in college? Consumers demand more of things when the price is lower and they buy less of something when the price is higher.
Of all the contentious arguments/opinions surrounding economics (Keynes versus Hayek, Krugman versus whomever), this is pretty easy for anyone to understand.
I always love to hear a Liberal rail against "big business", as if the consumers are being forced to spend less for a shirt made in Malaysia by a worker seeking "crumbs" who is exploited.
In utopia there is no private property. Perhaps someone should float that idea.
Perhaps what we need is a good long period of competition to get everyone on the globe back to the same relative "wage scale" that existed in the pre-industrial era. It would be painful for union-loving partisans, but it is hard to argue with the benefit it brings to that family in a developing country.
"Race to the bottom."
Bill, did you take an economics course in college? Consumers demand more of things when the price is lower and they buy less of something when the price is higher.
Of all the contentious arguments/opinions surrounding economics (Keynes versus Hayek, Krugman versus whomever), this is pretty easy for anyone to understand.
I always love to hear a Liberal rail against "big business", as if the consumers are being forced to spend less for a shirt made in Malaysia by a worker seeking "crumbs" who is exploited.
In utopia there is no private property. Perhaps someone should float that idea.
Perhaps what we need is a good long period of competition to get everyone on the globe back to the same relative "wage scale" that existed in the pre-industrial era. It would be painful for union-loving partisans, but it is hard to argue with the benefit it brings to that family in a developing country.
2
Economists have long argued that trade offers a net benefit to our economy – with the caveat that ground rules are needed so the trade is balanced and fair. So, we have trade agreements.
But most Americans understand that recent trade agreements, whatever benefits they may confer in the form of cheaper goods for the rest of us, ultimately bestow far greater financial benefits to the big corporations and the very rich.
What's more, the actual effects of trade agreements, whether positive or negative, are hard to ferret out, even for trained economists. Where there are significant benefits, they may be hard to see in the face of massive job losses.
For example, Eduardo Porter argued in a Times column that the much-maligned NAFTA created a North-America-wide auto industry able to compete on price, thereby staving off competition from China. In so doing, it may have saved the 800,000 jobs still remaining in the U.S. auto sector. Of course, that is small comfort to the 350,000 auto workers who lost their jobs. http://tinyurl.com/h962tl9
But most Americans understand that recent trade agreements, whatever benefits they may confer in the form of cheaper goods for the rest of us, ultimately bestow far greater financial benefits to the big corporations and the very rich.
What's more, the actual effects of trade agreements, whether positive or negative, are hard to ferret out, even for trained economists. Where there are significant benefits, they may be hard to see in the face of massive job losses.
For example, Eduardo Porter argued in a Times column that the much-maligned NAFTA created a North-America-wide auto industry able to compete on price, thereby staving off competition from China. In so doing, it may have saved the 800,000 jobs still remaining in the U.S. auto sector. Of course, that is small comfort to the 350,000 auto workers who lost their jobs. http://tinyurl.com/h962tl9
58
Ron: the enrichment of the rich and the deceleration of income to everyone else began long before NAFTA or anything like it. Similar problems hit France in the mid-1970s. Sweden retained the post-WWII boom longer, although a slow-down can be traced to the 1970 and a deep recession hit the country in the 1990s.
I hold no brief for trade agreements that don't protect workers, but it seems imperative that our experts look dispassionately at the current economic practice and avoid the distortion of partisanship. As you point out, that is not an easy task--all the more reason for them to get on with it. I am a person not a consumer.
I hold no brief for trade agreements that don't protect workers, but it seems imperative that our experts look dispassionately at the current economic practice and avoid the distortion of partisanship. As you point out, that is not an easy task--all the more reason for them to get on with it. I am a person not a consumer.
1
Right. We need to do more for displaced workers, but pretending that we can recreate the past is doing them a terrible disservice. The world has changed; technology has made many skills and jobs obsolete; great manufacturing jobs are going to be fewer and fewer not just in the USA, but world wide.
Mr. Trump trades in xenophobia, which blames the "other," the outsider, and other countries for our problems. So, yes, trade is a good target. It's those terrible Chinese or Mexicans working for lower wages. Or it is the fault of big bad manufacturers who took their jobs overseas. That, however, is capitalism - lower wages, bigger profits, more income for share holders, and lower prices for consumers. Those jobs are not coming back. The world has changed.
Mr. Trump trades in xenophobia, which blames the "other," the outsider, and other countries for our problems. So, yes, trade is a good target. It's those terrible Chinese or Mexicans working for lower wages. Or it is the fault of big bad manufacturers who took their jobs overseas. That, however, is capitalism - lower wages, bigger profits, more income for share holders, and lower prices for consumers. Those jobs are not coming back. The world has changed.
62
While the xenophobics are traducing trade, they should look in the mirror. If they'd stop buying stuff they do not need, they could virtually shut down trade and gut the capitalist machine they so despise.
All they have to do is say no to debt and servitude, but they're too busy blaming someone else, e.g., Republicans and Democrats, to do that.
Not that there is not enough blame to go around. Simply, no one controls anyone but themselves. Waiting and hoping for someone else to 'get it' or 'fix it' is a losing proposition. Life is too short...
All they have to do is say no to debt and servitude, but they're too busy blaming someone else, e.g., Republicans and Democrats, to do that.
Not that there is not enough blame to go around. Simply, no one controls anyone but themselves. Waiting and hoping for someone else to 'get it' or 'fix it' is a losing proposition. Life is too short...
21
Ah, taopraxis...
That would require that people accept some of the responsibility for their condition in life and step up and actually do something.
Millions of Americans work in small businesses. Millions more could be at work if others start productive small businesses that brings value to the consumer for the dollars that he pays.
That would require that people accept some of the responsibility for their condition in life and step up and actually do something.
Millions of Americans work in small businesses. Millions more could be at work if others start productive small businesses that brings value to the consumer for the dollars that he pays.
1
And what, Ms. Hislop, do you propose to do more for the displaced workers?
Retrain them for jobs that don't exist?
Give them financial support to them until the government realizes the the jobs that don't exist aren't going to be created unless some proactively creates them?
Your straw man is sagging from the lack of an actual structure to keep him standing.
So, what are you going to do? Please be specific.
Retrain them for jobs that don't exist?
Give them financial support to them until the government realizes the the jobs that don't exist aren't going to be created unless some proactively creates them?
Your straw man is sagging from the lack of an actual structure to keep him standing.
So, what are you going to do? Please be specific.
2
Germany's trade as a % of GDP is over four times higher than ours. It too features extensive trade with China.
Yet Germany has not had the same destruction of its economy by globalization sending jobs off shore.
The problem is not "trade" it is the terms of trade. It is not the doing of it, but how it is done.
Our trade deals where written by and for industry insiders and lobbyists, and they sell out the national interest and the interests of ordinary Americans for the benefits of those with the power to influence the deals that set the terms.
Not every nation has done that. Other nations have more trade than we do, without the damaging side effects.
Of course "trade" itself is the wrong problem. That does not justify how we are doing trade. It does not justify doing more of the same.
Yet Germany has not had the same destruction of its economy by globalization sending jobs off shore.
The problem is not "trade" it is the terms of trade. It is not the doing of it, but how it is done.
Our trade deals where written by and for industry insiders and lobbyists, and they sell out the national interest and the interests of ordinary Americans for the benefits of those with the power to influence the deals that set the terms.
Not every nation has done that. Other nations have more trade than we do, without the damaging side effects.
Of course "trade" itself is the wrong problem. That does not justify how we are doing trade. It does not justify doing more of the same.
414
European companies pay taxes to the countries where they sell their products. American companies selling products in the US pay taxes to the countries where they are based, which have very low tax rates.
If a German company were to outsource German jobs to another country, when it sold its products in Germany it would have to pay Value Added Tax (VAT) to Germany, which could be used to retrain displaced workers and improve the country’s infrastructure and social safety net.
When an American company outsources American jobs and sells its products in the U.S. it does not pay a single dollar in taxes. That leaves it with more funds available to finance further outsourcing of jobs.
As American jobs are outsourced the purchasing power of American consumers is reduced. American companies that have not outsourced production find themselves with a smaller market and increased competition from the companies which have outsourced. Their only alternative is to outsource their production themselves.
This vicious circle is destroying our middle class and has the seeds of its own destruction. It may eventually cost us our democracy.
The problem is not the trade deals. The problem is the American tax laws. What the country needs urgently is not a master deal maker. What it needs is a corporate tax reform to impose a VAT.
If a German company were to outsource German jobs to another country, when it sold its products in Germany it would have to pay Value Added Tax (VAT) to Germany, which could be used to retrain displaced workers and improve the country’s infrastructure and social safety net.
When an American company outsources American jobs and sells its products in the U.S. it does not pay a single dollar in taxes. That leaves it with more funds available to finance further outsourcing of jobs.
As American jobs are outsourced the purchasing power of American consumers is reduced. American companies that have not outsourced production find themselves with a smaller market and increased competition from the companies which have outsourced. Their only alternative is to outsource their production themselves.
This vicious circle is destroying our middle class and has the seeds of its own destruction. It may eventually cost us our democracy.
The problem is not the trade deals. The problem is the American tax laws. What the country needs urgently is not a master deal maker. What it needs is a corporate tax reform to impose a VAT.
7
Germany is also a large social-democratic country with a "Socialmarkwirtshaft" i.e., social market economy. Although benefits have been cut I bet they are still much higher than in the U.S. Germany also has completely free education. And its vocational education system is among best in the world, and distinguishes it from other European nations that also have free education, but a more academically oriented one. In Germany companies also invest in education - a lot of the workers are trained in companies on state-supported apprenticeships. I wonder which candidate is more likely to implement any of these measures in the U.S.?
6
In these pages the same Editorial Board said the following:
"A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-deal.html
The TPP does not meet that standard.
"A good agreement would lower duties and trade barriers on most products and services, strengthen labor and environmental protections, limit the ability of governments to tilt the playing field in favor of state-owned firms and balance the interests of consumers and creators of intellectual property."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/06/opinion/a-pacific-trade-deal.html
The TPP does not meet that standard.
9
I think that the fault for the decline in US manufacturing and the plight of the displaced worker is far more complicated than just trade agreements. Sure, they make a great scapegoat because they involve other countries: countries who lie, cheat, and steal (Trump) and countries that destroy US manufacturing (Sanders).
While I'm sure trade deals--bad trade deals, that is--are at fault, so is technology, automation, and 40 years of US companies seeking "efficiencies" through downsizing, which really meant, force those workers lucky to keep their jobs, to do the work of two people.
And let's not forget the capitalistic model, or should I say, capitalism post-Reagan, when the key motive of CEOs was less profit than greed. Rewarding shareholders is the essence of capitalism, but stiffing workers through job loss or negative pay raises in order to reward management along with shareholders isn't exactly fair.
So examine trade deals within the gestalt of how business, the employer-employee contract, and the normal changes that occur in economies as they transition from physical products to information products and you have a much bigger story.
One that doesn't lend itself to a single campaign slogan, like "I will bring back your jobs (even coal mining!) if you just elect me."
While I'm sure trade deals--bad trade deals, that is--are at fault, so is technology, automation, and 40 years of US companies seeking "efficiencies" through downsizing, which really meant, force those workers lucky to keep their jobs, to do the work of two people.
And let's not forget the capitalistic model, or should I say, capitalism post-Reagan, when the key motive of CEOs was less profit than greed. Rewarding shareholders is the essence of capitalism, but stiffing workers through job loss or negative pay raises in order to reward management along with shareholders isn't exactly fair.
So examine trade deals within the gestalt of how business, the employer-employee contract, and the normal changes that occur in economies as they transition from physical products to information products and you have a much bigger story.
One that doesn't lend itself to a single campaign slogan, like "I will bring back your jobs (even coal mining!) if you just elect me."
75
Let’s not confuse free-trade with trade based on comparative advantage.
Comparative advantage is not the advantage of one country compared with another. That is absolute, not comparative, advantage. Comparative advantage is the relative advantage of producing one good relative to another within any given country.
US trade with China, if it were based on comparative advantage, would benefit both countries indefinitely. To get it we must impose a VAT.
Currently, trade is based on China’s absolute advantage: cheap labor; not on comparative advantage. Initially, it will benefit China, but slowly destroy the US by destroying its middle class. Eventually, it will destroy China too, by destroying its premium market. This may be the reason for China’s faltering economy.
America’s absolute advantage: the cheapest, most abundant capital in the world.
What makes trade based on cheap labor feasible is the fact that the US does not have a Value Added Tax (VAT). A US company selling in the US can increase its profits by outsourcing production to China. Plus, by “relocating” its headquarters to a tax haven country it can delay paying US income taxes indefinitely.
A German company outsourcing production to China would still have to pay VAT immediately on each product it sells in Germany or any other VAT country (most, if not all, advanced countries).
We do not need a master deal maker. The lack of a VAT seems well on its way to destroying our hard won democratic system, too.
Comparative advantage is not the advantage of one country compared with another. That is absolute, not comparative, advantage. Comparative advantage is the relative advantage of producing one good relative to another within any given country.
US trade with China, if it were based on comparative advantage, would benefit both countries indefinitely. To get it we must impose a VAT.
Currently, trade is based on China’s absolute advantage: cheap labor; not on comparative advantage. Initially, it will benefit China, but slowly destroy the US by destroying its middle class. Eventually, it will destroy China too, by destroying its premium market. This may be the reason for China’s faltering economy.
America’s absolute advantage: the cheapest, most abundant capital in the world.
What makes trade based on cheap labor feasible is the fact that the US does not have a Value Added Tax (VAT). A US company selling in the US can increase its profits by outsourcing production to China. Plus, by “relocating” its headquarters to a tax haven country it can delay paying US income taxes indefinitely.
A German company outsourcing production to China would still have to pay VAT immediately on each product it sells in Germany or any other VAT country (most, if not all, advanced countries).
We do not need a master deal maker. The lack of a VAT seems well on its way to destroying our hard won democratic system, too.
1
To Christine McMorrow - " Sure, they [trade agreements] make a great scapegoat because they involve other countries: countries who lie, cheat, and steal (Trump) and countries that destroy US manufacturing (Sanders)."
But did Bernie Sanders actually use "other countries" as a scapegoat? Did Sanders really accuse '"other countries" of being to blame for the trade agreements that we (USA) chose to sign? That, of course, would be ridiculous - and Sanders positions on trade have been coherent and logical, not at all ridiculous.
Why are you accusing Sanders of something which he did not do?
But did Bernie Sanders actually use "other countries" as a scapegoat? Did Sanders really accuse '"other countries" of being to blame for the trade agreements that we (USA) chose to sign? That, of course, would be ridiculous - and Sanders positions on trade have been coherent and logical, not at all ridiculous.
Why are you accusing Sanders of something which he did not do?
2
No one of sound mind disputes that global trade is vital to the future of the American economy.
The argument at hand is one between advocates for so-called free trade and fair trade. The ideal of free trade is much more plausible when it is contemplated between nations that share roughly the same level of industrial and cultural development - like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and those of the European Union. I could enthusiastically support a trade agreement without tariffs between the United States and this advanced industrial block.
However, what is at dispute here is how there can be free trade among nations with dramatically different characteristics - for instance, between democracies and totalitarian states, the kind of state in which labor organizers who ruffle too many feathers end up with a bullet in the back of their heads, lying face down in a ditch.
That said, much of the resistance to free trade among unequal partners could be extinguished were the economic elite that profits from this unequal playing field willing to pay a level of taxation sufficient to fund the governmental programs that would be necessary once too many private sector jobs left our shores.
I conclude, however, by noting that the companies that clamor most for free trade agreements among unequal partners typically not only seek to exploit this race to the bottom, but also to evade every last penny of corporate tax they can.
The argument at hand is one between advocates for so-called free trade and fair trade. The ideal of free trade is much more plausible when it is contemplated between nations that share roughly the same level of industrial and cultural development - like the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and those of the European Union. I could enthusiastically support a trade agreement without tariffs between the United States and this advanced industrial block.
However, what is at dispute here is how there can be free trade among nations with dramatically different characteristics - for instance, between democracies and totalitarian states, the kind of state in which labor organizers who ruffle too many feathers end up with a bullet in the back of their heads, lying face down in a ditch.
That said, much of the resistance to free trade among unequal partners could be extinguished were the economic elite that profits from this unequal playing field willing to pay a level of taxation sufficient to fund the governmental programs that would be necessary once too many private sector jobs left our shores.
I conclude, however, by noting that the companies that clamor most for free trade agreements among unequal partners typically not only seek to exploit this race to the bottom, but also to evade every last penny of corporate tax they can.
310
There is a tendency to confuse free-trade with trade based on comparative advantage.
There is also a tendency to think comparative advantage is the advantage of one country compared with another. That is absolute, not comparative, advantage. Comparative advantage is the relative advantage of producing one good relative to another within any given country.
US trade with China, if it were based on comparative advantage, would benefit both countries indefinitely.
Currently, trade is based on China’s absolute advantage: cheap labor; not on comparative advantage. Initially, it will benefit China, but slowly destroy the US by destroying its middle class. Eventually, it will destroy China too, by destroying its premium market. This may be the reason for China’s faltering economy.
America’s absolute advantage: cheap capital.
What makes trade based on cheap labor feasible is the fact that the US does not have a Value Added Tax (VAT). A US company selling in the US can increase its profits by outsourcing production to China. By “relocating” its headquarters to a tax haven country it can delay paying US income taxes indefinitely.
A German company outsourcing production to China would still have to pay VAT on any product it sells in Germany or any other VAT country (most, if not all, advanced countries).
The lack of a VAT seems well on its way to destroying our hard won democratic system, too.
There is also a tendency to think comparative advantage is the advantage of one country compared with another. That is absolute, not comparative, advantage. Comparative advantage is the relative advantage of producing one good relative to another within any given country.
US trade with China, if it were based on comparative advantage, would benefit both countries indefinitely.
Currently, trade is based on China’s absolute advantage: cheap labor; not on comparative advantage. Initially, it will benefit China, but slowly destroy the US by destroying its middle class. Eventually, it will destroy China too, by destroying its premium market. This may be the reason for China’s faltering economy.
America’s absolute advantage: cheap capital.
What makes trade based on cheap labor feasible is the fact that the US does not have a Value Added Tax (VAT). A US company selling in the US can increase its profits by outsourcing production to China. By “relocating” its headquarters to a tax haven country it can delay paying US income taxes indefinitely.
A German company outsourcing production to China would still have to pay VAT on any product it sells in Germany or any other VAT country (most, if not all, advanced countries).
The lack of a VAT seems well on its way to destroying our hard won democratic system, too.
2
I wonder if companies consider the risk of capital when they invest in countries that don't have developed infrastructure, electric grids that can deliver power, roads that can deliver goods to market, laws that can protect property, governments that insure stability?
Free and fair trade are terms used by those who are against trade and have no clue how complex it is for companies to actually move their businesses to foreign countries. Risk is never in their equation because they really see trade as simply a move for low wages as opposed to finding new markets and customers along with all kinds of risk that doesn't exist in developed countries with clear laws and peaceful transitions of government personal.
Free and fair trade are terms used by those who are against trade and have no clue how complex it is for companies to actually move their businesses to foreign countries. Risk is never in their equation because they really see trade as simply a move for low wages as opposed to finding new markets and customers along with all kinds of risk that doesn't exist in developed countries with clear laws and peaceful transitions of government personal.
1
Not only corporate tax "minimization" but personal "investment" profits slip the tax noose that strangles the "ordinary" income of labor. It baffles me why the earned income of a dollar bill should get such favorable tax treatment (capital gains rates) over the wage of a human being who had to sweat for it.
1
"Mrs. Clinton has said she would review all trade deals, including Nafta. Both nominees are opposed to the Trans-Pacific Partnership...."
In 2008, Candidate Obama agreed to renegotiate Nafta. Instead, he's pushing the TPP, Nafta on steroids. And Clinton's so-called opposition to the the TPP is just campaign talk. It's obvious when one looks at her appointees to the DNC's Platform Committee. Not one of her appointees voted to oppose the TPP.
Nafta, Cafta, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China have FAILED. Since 2001, we have lost more than 60,000 factories and more than 5 million good-paying jobs. These trade agreements have been written for the benefit of corporate America at the expense of everyone else.
The TPP will not only increase the outsourcing of jobs, it will (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) increase drug prices and limit access to generic drugs, (3) undermine internet freedom, and (4) ban Buy American policies.
The TPP, like Nafta, threatens U.S. sovereignty. Foreign tribunals will give multinational corporations the right to sue a government if domestic laws reduce their future profits. Lawyers would rotate between serving as judges and representing corporations.
TransCanada filed a lawsuit on January 6, asking for "$15 billion" in compensation from U.S. taxpayers, claiming that the failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline violates U.S. Nafta obligations.
In 2008, Candidate Obama agreed to renegotiate Nafta. Instead, he's pushing the TPP, Nafta on steroids. And Clinton's so-called opposition to the the TPP is just campaign talk. It's obvious when one looks at her appointees to the DNC's Platform Committee. Not one of her appointees voted to oppose the TPP.
Nafta, Cafta, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China have FAILED. Since 2001, we have lost more than 60,000 factories and more than 5 million good-paying jobs. These trade agreements have been written for the benefit of corporate America at the expense of everyone else.
The TPP will not only increase the outsourcing of jobs, it will (1) weaken health, food safety, labor, environmental, and financial regulations, (2) increase drug prices and limit access to generic drugs, (3) undermine internet freedom, and (4) ban Buy American policies.
The TPP, like Nafta, threatens U.S. sovereignty. Foreign tribunals will give multinational corporations the right to sue a government if domestic laws reduce their future profits. Lawyers would rotate between serving as judges and representing corporations.
TransCanada filed a lawsuit on January 6, asking for "$15 billion" in compensation from U.S. taxpayers, claiming that the failure to approve the Keystone Pipeline violates U.S. Nafta obligations.
220
I haven’t heard anyone disparage trade, including Trump. What I’ve heard these days is a steady criticism of trade that is unfair to American middle-class interests. Big difference.
Even Mrs. Clinton, never NOT “triangulating” with her husband, has gone “uh … wait a minute now” on the TPP; and, fairly, I suppose she actually believes the concerns she’s expressed. This is quite a departure from the willingness for years of establishment pols, of both parties, to simply accept the costs to America of completely free trade so long as they can claim that they’ve supported it … for some reason that escapes me.
It’s not an either-or question on trade, as some are arguing (but neither Mrs. Clinton NOR Trump are arguing this). Trade, when it serves the interests of ALL parties, is a good thing, and many millions of American jobs depend on international trade. It’s when the more perceptive of our politicians come to conclude that some occupations are obsolete for Americans but lack the willingness to do the hard work of transitioning our people from the obsolete to the viable that they accept American losers to any trade deal are a cost that we must pay. That cost is measured in millions of diminished American lives as we hollow-out our middle classes, often to watch other societies build their own middle-classes on the wreckage of ours.
There need to be more BALANCED trade agreements. Trump certainly is evangelizing this, but even Mrs. Clinton seems to understand and accept it.
Even Mrs. Clinton, never NOT “triangulating” with her husband, has gone “uh … wait a minute now” on the TPP; and, fairly, I suppose she actually believes the concerns she’s expressed. This is quite a departure from the willingness for years of establishment pols, of both parties, to simply accept the costs to America of completely free trade so long as they can claim that they’ve supported it … for some reason that escapes me.
It’s not an either-or question on trade, as some are arguing (but neither Mrs. Clinton NOR Trump are arguing this). Trade, when it serves the interests of ALL parties, is a good thing, and many millions of American jobs depend on international trade. It’s when the more perceptive of our politicians come to conclude that some occupations are obsolete for Americans but lack the willingness to do the hard work of transitioning our people from the obsolete to the viable that they accept American losers to any trade deal are a cost that we must pay. That cost is measured in millions of diminished American lives as we hollow-out our middle classes, often to watch other societies build their own middle-classes on the wreckage of ours.
There need to be more BALANCED trade agreements. Trump certainly is evangelizing this, but even Mrs. Clinton seems to understand and accept it.
63
The entire world should note this building resentment on the part of Americans to trade agreements that damage our real interests while benefiting those of others. It’s really part of a much more general phenomenon. America is getting tired of excessively subsidizing the advancement of other societies, whether it be by defending them at our expense – both in fortune and blood – while they build social safety nets that we could never afford while also defending the world and reaching for the stars; or handing them our manufacturing and even service jobs while our own people go wanting.
Whether Donald Trump can turn this around or whether he gifts the Oval Office to Mrs. Clinton, certain characteristics of the next presidency, WHOEVER serves it, already are becoming clear: the world’s other nations will need to be more independent of American generosity, more willing and able to defend THEMSELVES against strongmen and buccaneers, and more innovative with respect to building their middle-classes without cannibalizing the hollowed-out remnants of ours.
Whether Donald Trump can turn this around or whether he gifts the Oval Office to Mrs. Clinton, certain characteristics of the next presidency, WHOEVER serves it, already are becoming clear: the world’s other nations will need to be more independent of American generosity, more willing and able to defend THEMSELVES against strongmen and buccaneers, and more innovative with respect to building their middle-classes without cannibalizing the hollowed-out remnants of ours.
67
Let’s not confuse free-trade with trade based on comparative advantage.
Comparative advantage is not the advantage of one country compared with another. That is absolute, not comparative, advantage. Comparative advantage is the relative advantage of producing one good relative to another within any given country.
US trade with China, if it were based on comparative advantage, would benefit both countries indefinitely. To get it we must impose a VAT.
Currently, trade is based on China’s absolute advantage: cheap labor; not on comparative advantage. Initially, it will benefit China, but slowly destroy the US by destroying its middle class. Eventually, it will destroy China too, by destroying its premium market. This may be the reason for China’s faltering economy.
America’s absolute advantage: the cheapest, most abundant capital in the world.
What makes trade based on cheap labor feasible is the fact that the US does not have a Value Added Tax (VAT). A US company selling in the US can increase its profits by outsourcing production to China. Plus, by “relocating” its headquarters to a tax haven country it can delay paying US income taxes indefinitely.
A German company outsourcing production to China would still have to pay VAT immediately on each product it sells in Germany or any other VAT country (most, if not all, advanced countries).
We do not need a master deal maker. The lack of a VAT seems well on its way to destroying our hard won democratic system, too.
Comparative advantage is not the advantage of one country compared with another. That is absolute, not comparative, advantage. Comparative advantage is the relative advantage of producing one good relative to another within any given country.
US trade with China, if it were based on comparative advantage, would benefit both countries indefinitely. To get it we must impose a VAT.
Currently, trade is based on China’s absolute advantage: cheap labor; not on comparative advantage. Initially, it will benefit China, but slowly destroy the US by destroying its middle class. Eventually, it will destroy China too, by destroying its premium market. This may be the reason for China’s faltering economy.
America’s absolute advantage: the cheapest, most abundant capital in the world.
What makes trade based on cheap labor feasible is the fact that the US does not have a Value Added Tax (VAT). A US company selling in the US can increase its profits by outsourcing production to China. Plus, by “relocating” its headquarters to a tax haven country it can delay paying US income taxes indefinitely.
A German company outsourcing production to China would still have to pay VAT immediately on each product it sells in Germany or any other VAT country (most, if not all, advanced countries).
We do not need a master deal maker. The lack of a VAT seems well on its way to destroying our hard won democratic system, too.
5
Richard:
"America is getting tired of excessively subsidizing the advancement of other societies, ... at our expense..."
Great comments here today on trade. The section I quoted stood out tom me because it seemed allegorical to the grievance here at home that productivity and profit have been consistently rising for large corporations while the ordinary people who have worked hard for those gains have shared very little of it. In a fairer system, that would not be the case. This disparity, whatever its cause, must also be seen as a driver of the hollowing out of the middle class you describe. As you say, it is not an either-or on trade, and the causes of Americans' dissatisfaction are probably also more complex and nuanced as well.
- Tom
"America is getting tired of excessively subsidizing the advancement of other societies, ... at our expense..."
Great comments here today on trade. The section I quoted stood out tom me because it seemed allegorical to the grievance here at home that productivity and profit have been consistently rising for large corporations while the ordinary people who have worked hard for those gains have shared very little of it. In a fairer system, that would not be the case. This disparity, whatever its cause, must also be seen as a driver of the hollowing out of the middle class you describe. As you say, it is not an either-or on trade, and the causes of Americans' dissatisfaction are probably also more complex and nuanced as well.
- Tom
Free trade per se is not the problem. Trade is efficient: it generally creates enough economic benefits to compensate parties that lose under it with something left over. So it's possible to both liberalize trade and to make sure that the benefits of trade are fairly distributed. There's little willingness, however, to take steps to ensure that these benefits are shared fairly.
What could we do? Take steps to make sure that the share wages receive of corporate profits increases instead of declining (set a higher minimum wage, strengthen collective bargaining rights, etc.). Increase taxes on equity to force those who benefit from trade (stockholders) to pay for programs such as education, healthcare, and jobs programs. Set limits on capital flight so that corporations can't free ride on the benefits they receive from doing business in our country while evading taxes. Establish a demogrant paid for by taxes on high incomes so that everyone benefits from an expanding economy.
We probably won't do these things. And given that, it's hard to begrudge someone for not supporting a free trade deal that will harm themselves or others. But we should be clear that the objection is not to free trade itself, but to the unwillingness on the part of those who benefit from trade to pay what it's worth.
What could we do? Take steps to make sure that the share wages receive of corporate profits increases instead of declining (set a higher minimum wage, strengthen collective bargaining rights, etc.). Increase taxes on equity to force those who benefit from trade (stockholders) to pay for programs such as education, healthcare, and jobs programs. Set limits on capital flight so that corporations can't free ride on the benefits they receive from doing business in our country while evading taxes. Establish a demogrant paid for by taxes on high incomes so that everyone benefits from an expanding economy.
We probably won't do these things. And given that, it's hard to begrudge someone for not supporting a free trade deal that will harm themselves or others. But we should be clear that the objection is not to free trade itself, but to the unwillingness on the part of those who benefit from trade to pay what it's worth.
165
The higher the minimum wage, the greater the incentive for companies to replace increasingly more expensive no-skill / low-skill minimum wage workers with increasingly less expensive and more efficient automation. The result will be increased unemployment among minimum wage workers.
3
For all the vaunted advantages of trade, there are countless disadvantages, not just in terms of jobs but in terms of quality of life. I happen not to be a big fan of the jobs thing, by the way. The tools developed in my lifetime should've freed people from work. Something is wrong...
I could write a book about it but if people could see it, they would've done so.
The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight.
When the electric percolator that has been in my family since the 1950's broke, I bought a new one. Guess what? It does not work.
So, I looked for another one. Reviews on the internet suggest that none of them are reliable and/or make drinkable coffee. People sell the fifty year old coffeemakers on the internet, not to collectors, but to people who need a percolator.
I bought an American made T-shirt for thirty dollars. My wife yelled at me, but guess what? It's a fantastic shirt and still looks good after several years of washing. The cheap ones shrink and twist and fray...garbage.
So, I decided to pay up for another American made one: Sorry, no longer available.
I'm a jazz guitarist. I bought not one, not two, but three of the guitars that I favor because I read the handwriting on the wall. Sure enough, those guitars declined in quality and skyrocketed in price.
I could sell the used ones for twice what I paid for them new.
No one is looking at the quality of life because everything is about money, today. I find that incredibly sad and, ultimately, deeply misguided.
I could write a book about it but if people could see it, they would've done so.
The truth is out there, hidden in plain sight.
When the electric percolator that has been in my family since the 1950's broke, I bought a new one. Guess what? It does not work.
So, I looked for another one. Reviews on the internet suggest that none of them are reliable and/or make drinkable coffee. People sell the fifty year old coffeemakers on the internet, not to collectors, but to people who need a percolator.
I bought an American made T-shirt for thirty dollars. My wife yelled at me, but guess what? It's a fantastic shirt and still looks good after several years of washing. The cheap ones shrink and twist and fray...garbage.
So, I decided to pay up for another American made one: Sorry, no longer available.
I'm a jazz guitarist. I bought not one, not two, but three of the guitars that I favor because I read the handwriting on the wall. Sure enough, those guitars declined in quality and skyrocketed in price.
I could sell the used ones for twice what I paid for them new.
No one is looking at the quality of life because everything is about money, today. I find that incredibly sad and, ultimately, deeply misguided.
372
Thank you, you totally beat me to it. The circle that just needs to be completed here are that flatlined and lowered wages render the cheap and shoddy goods all that the working classes can afford. Which is especially no bargain when the costs of replacement every couple of months are factored in.
Maybe someone can explain this to Larry Summers, who thinks that we morons of the working classes just need it explained to us all how we benefit from cheap goods?
Maybe someone can explain this to Larry Summers, who thinks that we morons of the working classes just need it explained to us all how we benefit from cheap goods?
4
I had a pair of New Balance sneakers, bought when they were still entirely US based. I beat them to hell but they lasted for years and it was only a matter of cosmetics that eventually made me give them up. Bought a new 'imported' pair of supposedly the same model a few months ago, for one third the price, and they are already headed for the landfill.
4
The serious erosion of quality in life in this country since the '90's is all around us down to the smallest details. For example, I'm old enough to remember when Johnson & Johnson made a band aid that could be neatly released from its wrapping by a little red thread that you pulled. Once you put that band aid on, it stuck until you wanted to pull it off (painfully). Now you have to struggle to open the thing, it often folds back in on itself, rendering it useless, and when you do manage to put it on, it washes off the first time you take a shower! In brief, the country is flooded with cheap disposable junk thanks to corporate inversion and unfavorable trade deals. They said that's what consumers want. Really?
4