My own position on TPP is somewhat like Hillary's-I'd rather see what's in it than go too half-cocked about how it could mean the end of the minimum wage or Dodd-Frank. I'm kind of torn:
1. I'm not so sure the legacy of Nafta, et. al has been so great.
2. The President really wants this and I just hate to see him with egg on his face.
What's more I do believe he's sincere that he believes he has labor protections with teeth this time and that corporations won't be able to sue and overturn minimum wage laws or Dodd-Frank.
Don't get me wrong-maybe the reason Corporate America is so in favor of TPP is because they believe it will enable them to do just that. But there's no question Obama doesn't want to in any way harm Dodd-Frank.
However, there is rising skepticism about the deal
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/05/19/rising-skepticism-among-democrats-about-obamas-big-trade-deal/
The IBD is not the kind of advocate Obama is looking for. IN their piece today for TPP they don't mention him-and he's probably not sorry about that. This is an uneasy fight for both sides in that Obama is on the same side as a lot of Republicans where his own party is more skeptical.
The IBD piece leads with a quote by Henry Hazlitt
"What is harmful or disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation." - Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/051915-753336-free-trade-makes-us-richer-and-freer-to-do-what-we-want.htm
See also:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/05/19/if_youre_anti-free_trade_youve_never_lived_without_it_101672.html
UPDATE: My apologies, I see that these two links are actually the same piece.
It occurs to me that even based on 'standard economics'-that Sumner always lectures me that I don't understand-this is wrong. Basic supply and demand can show you situations that are good for certain individuals but not for society. Hazlitt's comment suggests that every individual in a nation must prefer an action to be good which is obviously an impossibility.
Hazlitt's one lesson seems to be based in a failure of composition.
Here is a-critical-piece by Joseph Stiglitz.
"Trade agreements are about more than business—they’re about who has final say in the way people around the world live, what they eat, how much they are paid, what medicines they can buy and whether they have jobs. Such agreements shape economic policies that impact billions of people. The discussions surrounding these agreements are far too important to done in secret. But that’s precisely how the Obama administration is trying to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29740-joseph-stiglitz-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-this-is-a-big-deal
All I know is that the quality of jobs for Americans took a hit after NAFTA, et. al. Starting in 2001 a lot of people previously in white collar jobs-data entry, bookkeeping- suddenly were burger flippers, I agree that causation is harder but there is a correlation here. What I'd like to see is how many Americans are in the service sector today vs. in the 90s.
What seems to be the case is that Democrats in Congress are often skeptical of these big trade deals, but Democratic Presidents always wants these trade deals. So what is it that makes trade deals something Democratic Presidents want but Democratic Congresses oppose? Does simply occupying the office of POTUS make you pro free trade.
P.S. This post doesn't really provide an answer as I haven't really definitively decided as yet. I'll try to bring myself more up to speed on it.
UPDATE: Wow, that Real Clear Markets post is bad. After that Hazlitt quote it's all down hill:
"Thinking about the Hazlitt quote that begins this piece, an economy is not a blob with a life of its own. An economy is just a collection of individuals. Those individuals who comprise the U.S. or any economy generally receive a paycheck in return for their work, and free trade logically enhances the buying power of those checks. In a free market, monopoly profits are gradually competed away thanks to the arrival of new entrants. Open borders naturally speed up the process whereby the greatest number of globally talented producers strive mightily to serve us at the lowest prices possible."
It's as if no one in America has to worry about survival. With all these wonderful careers he mentions he doesn't mention Dunkin Donuts, factories, or even low paid telemarketer jobs. Folks who work in these jobs do so for one reason: survival. Right here in America. What a cruel life.
I hope there are other better arguments for the deal than this. There is nothing specific about TPP there, just a generalist excursion into the wonders of 'free trade' in the abstract.
The IBD is not the kind of advocate Obama is looking for. IN their piece today for TPP they don't mention him-and he's probably not sorry about that. This is an uneasy fight for both sides in that Obama is on the same side as a lot of Republicans where his own party is more skeptical.
The IBD piece leads with a quote by Henry Hazlitt
"What is harmful or disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation." - Henry Hazlitt, Economics In One Lesson
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/051915-753336-free-trade-makes-us-richer-and-freer-to-do-what-we-want.htm
See also:
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2015/05/19/if_youre_anti-free_trade_youve_never_lived_without_it_101672.html
UPDATE: My apologies, I see that these two links are actually the same piece.
It occurs to me that even based on 'standard economics'-that Sumner always lectures me that I don't understand-this is wrong. Basic supply and demand can show you situations that are good for certain individuals but not for society. Hazlitt's comment suggests that every individual in a nation must prefer an action to be good which is obviously an impossibility.
Hazlitt's one lesson seems to be based in a failure of composition.
Here is a-critical-piece by Joseph Stiglitz.
"Trade agreements are about more than business—they’re about who has final say in the way people around the world live, what they eat, how much they are paid, what medicines they can buy and whether they have jobs. Such agreements shape economic policies that impact billions of people. The discussions surrounding these agreements are far too important to done in secret. But that’s precisely how the Obama administration is trying to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29740-joseph-stiglitz-on-the-trans-pacific-partnership-this-is-a-big-deal
All I know is that the quality of jobs for Americans took a hit after NAFTA, et. al. Starting in 2001 a lot of people previously in white collar jobs-data entry, bookkeeping- suddenly were burger flippers, I agree that causation is harder but there is a correlation here. What I'd like to see is how many Americans are in the service sector today vs. in the 90s.
What seems to be the case is that Democrats in Congress are often skeptical of these big trade deals, but Democratic Presidents always wants these trade deals. So what is it that makes trade deals something Democratic Presidents want but Democratic Congresses oppose? Does simply occupying the office of POTUS make you pro free trade.
P.S. This post doesn't really provide an answer as I haven't really definitively decided as yet. I'll try to bring myself more up to speed on it.
UPDATE: Wow, that Real Clear Markets post is bad. After that Hazlitt quote it's all down hill:
"Thinking about the Hazlitt quote that begins this piece, an economy is not a blob with a life of its own. An economy is just a collection of individuals. Those individuals who comprise the U.S. or any economy generally receive a paycheck in return for their work, and free trade logically enhances the buying power of those checks. In a free market, monopoly profits are gradually competed away thanks to the arrival of new entrants. Open borders naturally speed up the process whereby the greatest number of globally talented producers strive mightily to serve us at the lowest prices possible."
"This is important because contrary to what you hear from Keynesian thinkers, savings are not only good for the individual, but also for the economy itself. We're told in economics classes that the economy will collapse if we're not constantly spending, but such fraudulent thinking is exposed as silly when applied to the individual. As individuals we know intuitively that a life without savings is brutal and scary. We know that it means we're one missed paycheck away from having to rely on the kindness of strangers, and a lost job away from the soul-destroying (J.K. Rowling) act of going on the dole. Worse, a lack of savings deprives us of long-term financial security. For lowering prices, free trade enhances the possibility that we'll be able to save more."
These are such bad arguments it's tough to know where to start. First of all, total failure of composition; in economics something can be good or bad for one individual and have opposite aggregate, social effects.
More of the same talking about individuals and savings. However, RCM does go on to admit that, yeah, trade deals do kill jobs but that's what economic progress is about.
"Naysayers will argue that free trade destroys jobs, but then so does all economic progress. This is a happy development. If jobs are or were the sole purpose of economic activity, then the logical next step beyond closing our borders to foreign goods would be to abolish the car, the tractor, the ATM machine and the internet. All four were massive job destroyers, but as evidenced by the fact that we're not in breadlines as a result of their proliferation, economic advances that destroy jobs don't erase work; rather they reorient investment to new forms of commerce that simply change the nature of our work. This is good. Indeed, not much more than 100 years ago most Americans worked on farms. Thank goodness for the economic progress that free trade speeds up. How skillful and productive would most of us be with the backhoe?"
It seems to me that Nafta mostly 'changed the nature of our work' for the worst-many who had middle or white collar jobs suddenly were working at McDonald's and 7 Eleven. Sure it was a 'change in the nature of our jobs'-in the wrong way.
UPDATE 2.0: This writer, John Tammy, is driving me crazy. It goes on and on:
"If the above isn't properly understood, imagine a life that is the norm in much of the world whereby our daily work were solely directed at survival as opposed to building on our talents? What a cruel life. In the U.S. some become financiers, yoga instructors and film directors, while others pursue careers as chefs, accountants, and technology entrepreneurs. So rich and free trading is our economy that we have choices. As opposed to spending our lives surviving, we're able to focus on what we're best at. Survival is a given. Figure more than a few Americans support themselves in a spare way (by American standards) such that they can devote the lion's share of their time to luxurious pursuits such as skiing. Readers may ask themselves how many ski bums hail from Myanmar, Peru and Zimbabwe."
I hope there are other better arguments for the deal than this. There is nothing specific about TPP there, just a generalist excursion into the wonders of 'free trade' in the abstract.
No comments:
Post a Comment