It's not a secret that this is an area where Bernie is going to try to draw his policy contrast with Hillary.
She has come out against it now-or did she?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/hillary-comes-out-against-tpp-today-or.html
Of course, Bernie will insist that this is just convenience on her part that he's Mr. Consistency and he was on the right side of every issue-except immigration and gun control-since the Creation.
What she did say to be sure was not quite scorched earth opposition Basically she said that the deal can and should be improved and that she with her experience as Secretary of State is the natural woman to improve it.
When Bernie says he's been opposed to trade deals since 1975 he ought to be reminded that the TPP deal is much newer than that. Is he just opposed by definition to all trade deals?
While you know me-I'm Mr. Democrat-I do admit that my party tends to be a little dogmatic about trade deals. We rightly support labor but labor is dogmatic about this. What no one ever does is show us the proof.
Even Nafta: where is the actual proof that it costs all these jobs? The answer is that there is none. If you look at job numbers since 1993 we of course have exponentially more jobs now than we did then.
Overall, I think that both trade fundamentalists on the Right and protectionists of both the Left and the Populist Right-Trump and Pat Buchanan-tend to exaggerate the effects of trade deals on jobs-in either direction.
It's not a black and white issue. But the Bernie Maniac types won't believe it.
Here is Fareed Zakaria:
"The United States has one of the world’s most open economies. Any trade deal like the TPP is going to open other economies — the Japanese or Vietnamese, for example — far more than the American. And the nature of the opening and the new rules will reflect American ideals and interests."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/you-cant-stop-the-trade-machine/2015/05/14/208d74a2-fa6e-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html
We are already an open economy. The benefit is from opening other economies for our goods and services.
"In an essay in Foreign Affairs in 1993 on the North American Free Trade Agreement, Paul Krugman said that NAFTA was not going to have much of an impact on the vast U.S. economy one way or the other. It was really about foreign policy. The economic effects of NAFTA have been heavily debated, but the foreign policy consequences are clear — and clearly positive."
"We forget now, but only three decades ago, Mexico was one of the world’s most anti-American countries. Its politics were a heady mix of resentment, envy and anger directed against its rich neighbor. Its governing party had a left-wing revolutionary attitude, unalterably opposed to Washington and its foreign policy."
Today, Mexico is transformed, unambiguously allied with the United States.Its president, from the same revolutionary ruling party, is resolutely and forthrightly pro-American. It has become a core component of a closely intertwined North American economy that is the world’s most vibrant regional bloc. Many factors led to this transformation, but NAFTA was chief among them."
So trade deals are about geopolitics often more than economics. What really needs to be done to increase our wages is to reconfigure labor regulations for the Uber economy, something that Hillary is front and center on.
She has come out against it now-or did she?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/10/hillary-comes-out-against-tpp-today-or.html
Of course, Bernie will insist that this is just convenience on her part that he's Mr. Consistency and he was on the right side of every issue-except immigration and gun control-since the Creation.
What she did say to be sure was not quite scorched earth opposition Basically she said that the deal can and should be improved and that she with her experience as Secretary of State is the natural woman to improve it.
When Bernie says he's been opposed to trade deals since 1975 he ought to be reminded that the TPP deal is much newer than that. Is he just opposed by definition to all trade deals?
While you know me-I'm Mr. Democrat-I do admit that my party tends to be a little dogmatic about trade deals. We rightly support labor but labor is dogmatic about this. What no one ever does is show us the proof.
Even Nafta: where is the actual proof that it costs all these jobs? The answer is that there is none. If you look at job numbers since 1993 we of course have exponentially more jobs now than we did then.
Overall, I think that both trade fundamentalists on the Right and protectionists of both the Left and the Populist Right-Trump and Pat Buchanan-tend to exaggerate the effects of trade deals on jobs-in either direction.
It's not a black and white issue. But the Bernie Maniac types won't believe it.
Here is Fareed Zakaria:
"The United States has one of the world’s most open economies. Any trade deal like the TPP is going to open other economies — the Japanese or Vietnamese, for example — far more than the American. And the nature of the opening and the new rules will reflect American ideals and interests."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/you-cant-stop-the-trade-machine/2015/05/14/208d74a2-fa6e-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html
We are already an open economy. The benefit is from opening other economies for our goods and services.
"In an essay in Foreign Affairs in 1993 on the North American Free Trade Agreement, Paul Krugman said that NAFTA was not going to have much of an impact on the vast U.S. economy one way or the other. It was really about foreign policy. The economic effects of NAFTA have been heavily debated, but the foreign policy consequences are clear — and clearly positive."
"We forget now, but only three decades ago, Mexico was one of the world’s most anti-American countries. Its politics were a heady mix of resentment, envy and anger directed against its rich neighbor. Its governing party had a left-wing revolutionary attitude, unalterably opposed to Washington and its foreign policy."
Today, Mexico is transformed, unambiguously allied with the United States.Its president, from the same revolutionary ruling party, is resolutely and forthrightly pro-American. It has become a core component of a closely intertwined North American economy that is the world’s most vibrant regional bloc. Many factors led to this transformation, but NAFTA was chief among them."
So trade deals are about geopolitics often more than economics. What really needs to be done to increase our wages is to reconfigure labor regulations for the Uber economy, something that Hillary is front and center on.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/07/hillary-on-uber-economy.html
Here is Krugman on TPP as we got his quote on NAFTA
I’ve described myself as a lukewarm opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership; although I don’t share the intense dislike of many progressives, I’ve seen it as an agreement not really so much about trade as about strengthening intellectual property monopolies and corporate clout in dispute settlement — both arguably bad things, not good, even from an efficiency standpoint. But the WH is telling me that the agreement just reached is significantly different from what we were hearing before, and the angry reaction of industry and Republicans seems to confirm that."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/tpp-take-two/
See this is why I see Bernie's 'consistency' as kind of dogmatic. How do you categorically oppose something that is being negotiated with 11 other countries and is in flux?
In Hillary's Hard Choices she expressed opposition to certain issues of intellectual property and regulatory impact as well.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_18?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=hillary+clinton+hard+choices&sprefix=hillary+clinton+ha%2Caps%2C155
No comments:
Post a Comment