In an earlier post, I suggested that part of what needs to happen is Bernie has to be called out on his demonization of trade.
Trade is not a panacea of all ills as some GOPers think but neither is it a cause of all ills. It's something of a mixed bag.
1. A large part of the issue of trade is geopolitical relations. We enter trade deals for goodwill between nations. NAFTA was also about improving relations between the US and Mexico.
2. The China deal didn't kill jobs but it arguably did bring down wages. However, this is water under the bridge at this point. China wages have been rising-and we've seen manufacturing being to come back.
3. To simply take away most favored trading status with China now would be disastrous for relations between the two nations.
A reader, who is also a friend on Twitter, had left a good comment on my previous trade post:
"Plants headed to China are doing so for tax reasons, not trade ones. Deindustrialization started in the 70s because shutting plants down put gobs of cash in corporate pockets. Using a law designed for the liquor related firms closed by Prohibition, closing any plant now is fast cash from the government. When Bethlehem Steel closed it's Buffalo plant, they got almost 1 billion from the feds. This had and still has NOTHING to do with outsourcing or trade. With tariffs, it would not stop - plants move to get behind tariffs as we saw after WW II. Ford Motors became the biggest European corporation to get the European markets. Outsouring to return goods to the US is partly about no tariffs but would happen most likely anyway since it happened before NAFTA. Being anti free trade should rest on demanding global labor, environmental and other standards so that it is considerably more about uplifting all populations rather than exploiting them. Just saying it kills jobs misses the far bigger picture of domestic tax laws and incentives. The trade bills aren't the issue - it's those laws that need to be changed BY Congress which requires a far better Congress."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/fighting-back-against-bernies-anti.html?showComment=1457798724459#c8816049897879654710
Trade is not a panacea of all ills as some GOPers think but neither is it a cause of all ills. It's something of a mixed bag.
1. A large part of the issue of trade is geopolitical relations. We enter trade deals for goodwill between nations. NAFTA was also about improving relations between the US and Mexico.
2. The China deal didn't kill jobs but it arguably did bring down wages. However, this is water under the bridge at this point. China wages have been rising-and we've seen manufacturing being to come back.
3. To simply take away most favored trading status with China now would be disastrous for relations between the two nations.
A reader, who is also a friend on Twitter, had left a good comment on my previous trade post:
"Plants headed to China are doing so for tax reasons, not trade ones. Deindustrialization started in the 70s because shutting plants down put gobs of cash in corporate pockets. Using a law designed for the liquor related firms closed by Prohibition, closing any plant now is fast cash from the government. When Bethlehem Steel closed it's Buffalo plant, they got almost 1 billion from the feds. This had and still has NOTHING to do with outsourcing or trade. With tariffs, it would not stop - plants move to get behind tariffs as we saw after WW II. Ford Motors became the biggest European corporation to get the European markets. Outsouring to return goods to the US is partly about no tariffs but would happen most likely anyway since it happened before NAFTA. Being anti free trade should rest on demanding global labor, environmental and other standards so that it is considerably more about uplifting all populations rather than exploiting them. Just saying it kills jobs misses the far bigger picture of domestic tax laws and incentives. The trade bills aren't the issue - it's those laws that need to be changed BY Congress which requires a far better Congress."
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/fighting-back-against-bernies-anti.html?showComment=1457798724459#c8816049897879654710
That was a particularly absurd moment of Bernie demagoguery-when he blamed Hillary for a deterioration of Detroit which started in 1960.
Ben Jealous's favorite attack line of Hillary is that she was a 'Goldwater girl.' She was back in 1964 when she was 16. Elizabeth Warren was a GOPer as recently as 1996.
But 1960 is even before HRC was for Goldwater. So who is Bernie fooling?
The idea of imposing high tariffs on China or Mexico is absurd. It isn't less absurd when Bernie calls for it than when Trump does.
Ben Jealous's favorite attack line of Hillary is that she was a 'Goldwater girl.' She was back in 1964 when she was 16. Elizabeth Warren was a GOPer as recently as 1996.
But 1960 is even before HRC was for Goldwater. So who is Bernie fooling?
The idea of imposing high tariffs on China or Mexico is absurd. It isn't less absurd when Bernie calls for it than when Trump does.
No comments:
Post a Comment