Tag: International Trade

What You Should Know About That Completed TPP “Trade” Deal

By now everyone that has a political blog has written something about the new trade agreement the Us has decided to get in on……the TPP.

Personally, I think it will be more disastrous than the boondoggle of Clinton…..NAFTA……

Most everyone has bitched about the agreement but how many have bothered to see what they are bitching about?

In case you are one of those people….let me help……

The United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, and eight more Pacific Rim countries on Monday came to an agreement on a free-trade pact that would kill upward of 18,000 tariffs currently in place on US exports ranging from cars to avocados, in a deal the Washington Post hails as the largest “in a generation.” The terms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership were hashed out over nine days in Atlanta, with an intended Sunday announcement falling through amid continuing debate. What you need to know:

  • What makes the deal so large? The counties involved (also Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) represent about 40% of the world’s GDP.
  • How long has the deal been in the works? Negotiations have occurred over almost eight years, per the New York Times, with the Post terming five of those years as seeing “arduous” debates. President Obama has been pushing the deal as a way to keep China from having an overbearing influence on Pacific trade.
  • What were some of the final sticking points? Drugs and dairy. US producers of biologic drugs (that is, those made from living organisms) currently have 12 years to keep their data secret so as to ward off cheaper rivals. Australia was the loudest opponent; the compromise provides between five and eight years of data protection. On the dairy front, America will be able to export more dairy to Canada and Japan; we’ll also import more such products from New Zealand.
  • So is it a go? Not yet. Congress now has 90 days to review the agreement, whose full text won’t be available for as long as a month. That puts the up-or-down vote in early 2016 (February at the earliest, per Politico.) The Wall Street Journal reports that support among Democrats is tepid; as for Republicans, it paints their support as “unpredictable” as they eye the 2016 election. Labor unions, environmentalists, and liberal activists see it as a bad deal for American workers and the planet. Candidates ranging from Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders aren’t fans, either.
  • What would it mean for Obama? “Legacy-making” and “legacy-defining” are the phrases being trotted out by the media, with the Times summing it up as a potential “capstone for his foreign policy ‘pivot’ toward closer relations with fast-growing eastern Asia, after years of American preoccupation with the Middle East and North Africa.”

There are the basics of the agreement….and I could stop there and hope that everyone would care enough to check the deal out…..but we all know that I am not that kind of writer…….there is so much more that needs to be said about the agreement….it might as well be me that sez it!

The agreement remains secret for now, but here is what we know and what to expect.

Source: What You Should Know About That Completed TPP “Trade” Deal

This deal will be a horrible deal for the American worker….just like NAFTA…..we all need to speak up and demand ALL the information….if it is so good for Americans why is it still a secret?

That one question says it all.

Turn The Page!

The Pacific trade deal has all kinds of protections for businesses — but not for workers | GlobalPost

Obama’s newest fight with Congress is the trade agreement that he supports, the TPP…….we are told all about how good it will be for this country……Obama and his conservative supports are pulling out all stops to make this thing happen……..

The problem is, at least for me, that all the promises and talk has all  been said before……that time by Bubba Clinton and his abortion, NAFTA……for all the good they told us it would do just somehow did not help any body but business…..the workers were screwed….as always……the TPP will be NO different.

If this is such a superb deal for the country then why is it a secret?  Why is it not possible for us to see the agreement before it is finalized?

TPP will be nothing but a con to promote and protect business…..workers will be left at the curb…..as they always are in these “good” deals……..

 

The Pacific trade deal has all kinds of protections for businesses — but not for workers | GlobalPost.

More Free Trade Pacts?

Back in the 1990’s, I wrote several pieces about what the proposed free trade acts would do to the economy in this country…I believed then that they would do NOTHING good and on the contrary would cost American jobs and loss of industry…of course, in those days I was called a commie for NOT wanting to see a free trade act….not much has changed……….I am still called a commie more likely a socialist but not many know the difference……why do I rehash the past?

Well, guess what?  The Obama admin is proposing a…..wait for it……a free trade act……that is right…yet another free trade agreement……

This time it is agreement with Panama, Columbia and South Korea and the White House has said that it will create American jobs…..really?  Is that not what NAFTA was suppose to do?  Don’t hurt yourself…..that was the promise.  Now if anyone recalls, candidate Obama said that reforming NAFTA to make it more worker friendly would be a priority for his admin…..that was pretty much a lie…there has been NO reform of NAFTA.  It seems that the Obama admin has allowed corporate America to write up these newest proposals….and guess what?   It will put millions of Americans back to work……REALLY?

If that is true why would they say this?

The Obama administration said on Monday that it would not seek Congressional approval of free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea until Republicans agree to expand assistance for American workers who might lose jobs as a result… The announcement puts the White House in line with Congressional Democrats who have made expanded benefits a condition of their support for the trade deals.  (Quoted from the NY Times)…

Let me see if I have this right?  The trade agreements will create jobs but before it goes into effect the Congress must make provisions for any job loss that is created by the agreement……..”The administration is simultaneously selling the trade deals as engines of job growth while admitting that the deals will likely kill so many American jobs that Congress must preemptively cough up money to clean up the corresponding economic wreckage.”  (Quoted David Sirota in Salon.com)….

You still do not think it is all one big game in Washington?  Just once I would like for the American people to get all the info before they go off half cocked….I know….a silly notion!

Is There A Trade Issue?

From the Daily Agitator

We hear all the hub-bub about how China is steal our economy and as such stealing our cash…..China is being demonized from all quarters….from the Right and from the Left….and then there are the moderates they are on board with the trashing….we can trash and trash and China will still out preform us with some sort of intervention by the state…..but what to do?  What to do?

First a little background……China has a high percentage of the rare earth minerals….those minerals that are used in cellphones, computers and a bunch more electronic gear…..it is fine for say, an American company to mine these minerals in China….but if you mine their minerals you must also process and refine those in the country….you must build a refinery and hire local people before you are allowed to export the finished product…..

Now for a new plan……since just about everything you touch these days is made in China…..why not tell China that they can make anything they want for export to the US….but if it has to be assembled then they must build an assembly plant in the US and hire local people to do the assembly…….may not be the best idea but at least we would be trying to do something to pick up our economy……

Of course, that would mean that companies like Walmart would crap all over themselves and fight any such attempts with all their influence and cash….but the time has come to put aside corporate influence and find a way to create more jobs in this country….the corporations and the government owe the American people a working chance to survive…..

Obama’s Trade Policy

During the campaign, Obama said he generally supports free-trade policies but also signaled a tougher approach that is only now beginning to be outlined. Both in Kirk’s testimony yesterday and in a policy statement issued by new Obama appointees at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the administration vowed to make tougher labor and environmental standards prerequisites for trade deals. Rather than stressing the signing of new agreements, the administration indicated that it will instead prioritize stricter enforcement of existing ones before the World Trade Organization — the Geneva-based body that arbitrates global trade.

The Obama administration is aggressively reworking U.S. trade policy to more strongly emphasize domestic and social issues, from the displacement of American workers to climate change.

Even as world trade takes its steepest drop in 80 years amid the global economic crisis, the administration is preparing to take a harder line with America’s trading partners. It will seek new benchmarks before supporting already-written trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea and is suggesting that it will dig in its heels on global trade talks, demanding that other countries make broader concessions first.

Those divides appear to be more unbreachable than ever as world leaders move to protect their domestic industries from the ravages of the financial crisis, embracing new trade barriers aimed at imported goods and other measures meant to restrict the flow of capital outside their borders. In the United States, more Americans are blaming cheap imports for job losses at home and congressional leaders pressed successfully to include a “buy American” provision in the $787 billion stimulus program to give an edge to U.S.-made products.

Yet the administration still appears to be toeing a line, saying it will move to address the concerns of American workers while also carefully avoiding words and deeds that directly smack of protectionism.

Though Obama said before the elections that he would seek to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, he has since backed away from that statement, vowing during his recent trip to Canada to avoid protectionism. Obama’s opposition to a stronger version of the “buy American” provisions added to the stimulus bill last month by congressional Democrats is also viewed as a major reason it was eventually watered down before the bill reached his desk for signing.

“Buy American”–Good Or Bad?

A “Buy American” drive in President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan is sparking protests from businesses and trading partners, and drawing cheers from domestic manufacturers and unions.

Obama is pushing Congress for swift passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as vital to prevent the collapse of the fragile US economy amid the accelerating global financial crisis.

The House of Representatives passed an 819 billion dollar version of the economic stimulus package Wednesday that contains a “Buy American” provision generally barring the purchase of foreign iron and steel for any stimulus-funded infrastructure project.

The massive stimulus plan of tax cuts and spending has moved to the Senate, where lawmakers are working on their own version that extends the “Buy American” initiative on iron and steel to include all US manufactured goods.

As the global economic crisis continues to deepen, the unmistakable stench of economic nationalism is on the rise around the world. Confronted with collapsing industries and growing anger over job losses, governments are reaching for protectionist measures despite the disastrous consequences of such beggar-thy-neighbour policies in the 1930s.

The new Obama administration spurred on the rising tide of protectionism with the comments last week of Treasury Secretary nominee Tim Geithner accusing China of manipulating its currency to boost exports. Designating Beijing as a “currency manipulator” would allow the White House to invoke a broad range of punitive tariffs and other economic penalties against China under US trade legislation.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives went one step further by including a “Buy American” provision in Obama’s $825 billion stimulus package approved on Wednesday. The clause, which requires infrastructure projects funded by the package to use only US-made iron and steel, has provoked protests from European steelmakers. Democrat senator Byron Dorgan is proposing a broader measure to exclude most foreign-made manufactured goods when the package reaches the Senate.

Such measures threaten to provoke escalating retaliation and a full-blown trade war. A comment in the US journal Foreign Policy warned that the “explicitly protectionist language” contained in the package would “certainly be taken as a bad sign by the rest of the world. The world can deal with a protectionist India or Indonesia. The trading system will have much more trouble if the United States starts to renege on its traditional leadership role.”

Is this move the slippery slope of economic nationalism?  Or possibly good politics?

What Is Free Trade?

Free trade means free production. Now fully to free production it is necessary not only to remove all taxes on production, but also to remove all other restrictions on production. True free trade, in short, requires that the active factor of production, Labor, shall have free access to the passive factor of production, Land. To secure this all monopoly of land must be broken up, and the equal right of all to the use of the natural elements must be secured by the treatment of the land as the common property in usufruct of the whole people.

Thus it is that free trade brings us to the same simple measure as that which we have seen is necessary to emancipate labor from its thralldom and to secure that justice in the distribution of wealth which will make every improvement or reform beneficial to all classes.

The partial reform miscalled free trade, which consists in the mere abolition of protection — the mere substitution of a revenue tariff for a protective tariff — cannot help the laboring classes, because it does not touch the fundamental cause of that unjust and unequal distribution which, as we see today, makes “labour a drug and population a nuisance” in the midst of such a plethora of wealth that we talk of over-production. True free trade, on the contrary, leads not only to the largest production of wealth, but to the fairest distribution. It is the easy and obvious way of bringing about that change by which alone justice in distribution can be secured, and the great inventions and discoveries which the human mind is now grasping can be converted into agencies for the elevation of society from its very foundations.

Agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc are not promoting free trade.  They are however, destroying the manufacturing sector in the US.  It did however promote the spread of globalization which in turn out sourced thousands of Amewrican jobs to overseas locations.

I suggest that when Americans hear the words “free trade” uttered by their representatives then they sit up and ask questions.  So far it has not helped the US and its people.

World Economy Just Sucks

The United Nations says the world economy faces its worst downturn since the Great Depression.

It expects world economic output to shrink by as much as 0.4% in 2009, due to a slump among developed countries – particularly the US and in Europe.

This would mark the world economy’s first year of contraction since the 1930s, the UN said.

The UN expects developed economies to shrink by up to 1.5%, while developing nations should expand by at least 2.7%.

But because of higher population growth in developing countries, income per capita for the world as a whole is expected to fall in 2009.

And the slowing of growth in the poorest countries “suggests a significant setback in the progress made in poverty reduction in many developing countries over the past few years.”

The UN’s World Economic Situation and Prospects 2009 report gives three forecasts for growth next year – a baseline forecast of 1% growth, a pessimistic scenario of a 0.4% contraction and an optimistic scenario of 1.6% growth.

This compares with growth of 2.5% in 2008 and 3.8% in 2007.

The report said that developed economies have led the downturn, but that the global nature of trade and finance meant that economic weakness had spread rapidly to developing countries.

It warned that the international community had been complacent about the impact of the global financial crisis on poorer countries.

They are facing higher borrowing costs and lower export growth.

The UN also says that the downturn highlights key failures in the international financial system.

Does Anyone Remember The Monroe Doctrine?


Traditionally, international trade in Latin America has meant trade with the United States. The geographic proximity and close political ties between the two regions dating back to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which was designed to monopolize US power in Latin America, have had a lot to do with that. As a result, Latin American governments and potential foreign trading partners other than the United States have historically been discouraged from trading with others by means of high tariffs on imports and exports and stringent regulations from Washington. Since the Roosevelt Corollary was announced in 1904 to stop German and British ships from sailing to Venezuela to collect debt payments, the United States has been the unofficial arbiter of all hemispheric affairs.

Although the United States will continue to play a vital role in the economic and political landscape of Latin America, there are a number of reasons to believe that the days of the United States’ ability to act with free reign are coming to an end. The inaction of the incumbent US president has a lot to do with that. The past eight years have been some of the most damaging for US-Latin American relations. The Bush administration’s neglect of the region, which has seen the president make only two perfunctory appearances (one at a Summit of the Americas meeting in Argentina in 2005 and another to Mexico, Guatemala, Brazil, Colombia, and Uruguay in 2007), has taken its toll politically. US popularity has sunk to all-time lows. The regional “leftist movement” that many have written about can owe part of its success to its leaders promising the end of U.S. influence and controversial Washington-advocated neoliberal economic policies in the region.


There is already evidence that US-dominated influence in the region is over, both politically and economically. In its stead, China has quietly positioned itself to fill the void in Latin American affairs. There are many developments that prove this. China and Peru are in the midst of free trade talks that could be signed as early as November, and Chile and China have had a free-trade agreement since 1 October 2006. In August, Argentina’s Banco de Inversión y Comercio Exterior (BICE) slashed interest rates in a move to directly encourage more investment from China Development Bank. On 1 September Paraguay reversed their decision to recognize Taiwanese sovereignty, and Alan Garcia of Peru has officially rejected Tibetan independence in an effort to show solidarity with the mainland Chinese government. Twelve days before he assumed the presidency in January 2006, Evo Morales met with Hu Jintao to discuss the two nations’ strategic importance and ideological similarities.

Maybe it is time to revisit the Monroe Doctrine.  Just a thought.