As we've seen in this political season, trade deals are very polarizing. You have the economists who preach the virtues of trade, but Trump and Bernie show the ways in which trade can easily be demonized.
The best that I can tell on trade is this.
1. It doesn't kill jobs
2. But it can sometimes bring down wages-if the countries we enter into the trade agreements with have considerably lower wages than we do.
3. But remember that in economics things aren't static. Even if giving most favored trading status to China hurt US wages, ripping up the deal now would be after the cow has left the barn. Chinese wages have now risen considerably.
4. But trade deals are not done primarily because of economics. They are about geopolitics.
5. This explains an interesting incongruence in US politics. Normally Republicans are pro trade deals and Democrats are anti trade deals. Yet we notice that there is always one Democrat that is for trade deals. And he matters a lot: the Democratic President.
6. Bill Clinton ran as a 'New Democrat' and his support of NAFTA was no surprise but President Obama as candidate Barrack Obama was pretty much an anti trade ideologue not so different than Trump and Bernie.
He was for 'rewriting NAFTA' just as Trump and Bernie tell us they will do. Hillary for her part, was anti trade as well. She promised no more trade deals in the future.
7. Why this incongruence? Because of 4.
8. Obama has sought a 'pivot towards Asia'-ie, a pivot away from the Middle East after the disastrous Bush wars in the Middle East.
Of course, the rub is that the Mid East is part of Asia as Vali Nasr points out. He argues that the US shouldn't wash its hands of the Middle East as Obama largely wants to do.
http://www.amazon.com/Dispensable-Nation-American-Foreign-Retreat/dp/0345802578/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460969138&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dispensable+nation
In any case, the goal of the TPP in many ways is about forming tighter ties with Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. as a way of boxing out China.
9. You see what the TPP is not about then. It's got nothing to do with 'corporate donors', etc.
But this is the way the politics of it is framed by fatuous populism.
The best that I can tell on trade is this.
1. It doesn't kill jobs
2. But it can sometimes bring down wages-if the countries we enter into the trade agreements with have considerably lower wages than we do.
3. But remember that in economics things aren't static. Even if giving most favored trading status to China hurt US wages, ripping up the deal now would be after the cow has left the barn. Chinese wages have now risen considerably.
4. But trade deals are not done primarily because of economics. They are about geopolitics.
5. This explains an interesting incongruence in US politics. Normally Republicans are pro trade deals and Democrats are anti trade deals. Yet we notice that there is always one Democrat that is for trade deals. And he matters a lot: the Democratic President.
6. Bill Clinton ran as a 'New Democrat' and his support of NAFTA was no surprise but President Obama as candidate Barrack Obama was pretty much an anti trade ideologue not so different than Trump and Bernie.
He was for 'rewriting NAFTA' just as Trump and Bernie tell us they will do. Hillary for her part, was anti trade as well. She promised no more trade deals in the future.
7. Why this incongruence? Because of 4.
8. Obama has sought a 'pivot towards Asia'-ie, a pivot away from the Middle East after the disastrous Bush wars in the Middle East.
Of course, the rub is that the Mid East is part of Asia as Vali Nasr points out. He argues that the US shouldn't wash its hands of the Middle East as Obama largely wants to do.
http://www.amazon.com/Dispensable-Nation-American-Foreign-Retreat/dp/0345802578/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460969138&sr=8-1&keywords=the+dispensable+nation
In any case, the goal of the TPP in many ways is about forming tighter ties with Vietnam, Malaysia, etc. as a way of boxing out China.
9. You see what the TPP is not about then. It's got nothing to do with 'corporate donors', etc.
But this is the way the politics of it is framed by fatuous populism.
No comments:
Post a Comment