Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric (1 Viewer)

[dapperdan]

Not to mention other advantages - like pegged currencies, lax environmental laws, government subsidies, child labor, meager wages, etc.
Those are the problems with the trade deals, and crying out "free trade is good" just doesn't make sense. If Obama cannot see that then his judgment isn;t as good as he claims.

Jim, while I don't necessarily disagree with you that there are disparities in areas that you mention, such as lax environmental laws, government subsidies, child labor, meager wages, etc. it seems to me that our tighter laws in these areas are part of a trade-off that we must accept. Practically speaking, there really aren't very good mechanisms in place for us to impose our will, in areas of lax environmental laws, government subsidies, child labor, meager wages, etc., short of taking over foreign governments. I mean, you really can't dictate internal Chinese laws to the Chinese. If we have to compete against lax environmental law overseas, it is certainly a possibility that our laws may be overly restrictive, and that they should be re-examined.

 

[JimEverett]

I agree that there needs to be reciprocity, but what I need is numbers to see if the current arrangement is an overall net benefit for us vice protectionist policies on both sides.... I suspect even with the current imbalance we're still seeing an overall net benefit, just not as good as it should be.

The current accounts deficit should be enough proof. That number is out of whack.

The decline of our dollar is also good proof as well.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Jim, while I don't necessarily disagree with you that there are disparities in areas that you mention, such as lax environmental laws, government subsidies, child labor, meager wages, etc. it seems to me that our tighter laws in these areas are part of a trade-off that we must accept. Practically speaking, there really aren't very good mechanisms in place for us to impose our will, in areas of lax environmental laws, government subsidies, child labor, meager wages, etc., short of taking over foreign governments. I mean, you really can't dictate internal Chinese laws to the Chinese. If we have to compete against lax environmental law overseas, it is certainly a possibility that our laws may be overly restrictive, and that they should be re-examined.

What do you think the effect would be if we imposed some type of tariff based on the environmental and child labor laws in the exporting country? So, if trading partner has no child labor laws - 10% tariff on all manufactured items, etc.

I suppose what kind of tariffs they have on our goods, and whether they need our imports more than we need theirs....

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

Just like you can always count on a EE poster to take a quote out of context. Why did you snip out the part about Goolsbee saying that this is the part of the document that is completely innacurate?

Because Goolsbee's denial is laughable - he doesnt dispute any other part of the memo - just that one sentence. Please.

First, there was no meeting.

Now, there was a meeting, but, ignore the memo written contemporaneously with the meeting, he never said what everyone else in the room heard. Right.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The current accounts deficit should be enough proof. That number is out of whack.

The decline of our dollar is also good proof as well.

I don't necessarily believe that a declining dollar is either good or bad... the current account deficit is a concern for me.

 

[dapperdan]

I'm conceding that some people here will go to great lengths to misconstrue details in order to make their otherwise weak arguments seem like they have some weight. Sometimes reading these threads is like watching toddlers run with scissors. I guess that if I need to concede something in this thread it would be that, in light of this latest story, Goolsbee has cost Obama whatever chance he had at winning the Republican nomination for President.

Honestly gavinj, the purpose of this thread was not to bash Obama. It was to point out Obama's political background as well as the Democratic primary has left his positions politically untested. It's easy to consistently preach to the choir, it's not so easy to be held up to serious scrutiny. Obama has never been held up to serious political scrutiny.

The current media and Democratic primary lovefest for Obama is not going to serve him well when it comes to the general election; but especially, it is not going to serve him well if he becomes President. Obama's track record is that of a highly partisan, extremely liberal politician. The is a huge difference between running for office and actually governing; and at this point, he is probably the least prepared politician in my lifetime to actually govern as President.

 

[RebSaint]

The current media and Democratic primary lovefest for Obama is not going to serve him well when it comes to the general election; but especially, it is not going to serve him well if he becomes President. Obama's track record is that of a highly partisan, extremely liberal politician. The is a huge difference between running for office and actually governing; and at this point, he is probably the least prepared politician in my lifetime to actually govern as President.

I think you're really making a lot of assumptions on Obama which aren't necessarily true.

Yes, very liberal. :redx: on "extremely" partisan

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Paper_Republicans_embrace_Obamas_bipartisanship_0607.html

Here's the opposition party praising Obama's bipartisanship.

Furthermore, whereas you might see his inexperience and lack of ties to Washington insiders, in 2008 I think it's an advantage.

And I also think you're exaggerating Obama's "inexperience," which is really become more of a talking point rather than reality. True, compared to other politicians on both sides of the aisle, there's a lack of federal experience, but the "least prepared" to actually govern gets another :redx:

 

[JimEverett]

I don't necessarily believe that a declining dollar is either good or bad... the current account deficit is a concern for me.

I agree - at least to some extent. But the decline is evidence of a wacko trade policy. WE should not be the dumping ground for developing nations' goods.

 

[dapperdan]

What do you think the effect would be if we imposed some type of tariff based on the environmental and child labor laws in the exporting country? So, if trading partner has no child labor laws - 10% tariff on all manufactured items, etc.

I suppose what kind of tariffs they have on our goods, and whether they need our imports more than we need theirs....

The problem is UTJ, what price are we willing to pay for our morals. It's an age old question. Should we become the world's morality police, I'm not arguing for or against, just posing the question, because whatever side you come down on, there are serious consequences. Should we deal with this question on a national basis? Or a company by company basis? Personally, I believe that individual companies Walmart or Nike can have a more direct effect on the situation, with much less political fallout, then using government negotiations. We don't always have to use a big hammer to get the best results.

 

[SoonerJim]

The WSJ today made the same point I alluded to earlier, that the tax and regulatory dynamics of a state determine whether an international trade pact is good for, or harmful to, a state. The Texas two-step is applicable to these candidates, who cannot reconcile their positions in light of past rhetoric.

When McCain and Romney campaigned in Michigan, the former told their electorate to "deal with it", where the latter, the presumed "heir to Reagan", pledged a Marshall plan to rescue Michigan from their perennial depression. McCain is loathed by the frothing Right, but he speaks unpleasant truths. These states create their own economic hell.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450306595906431.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

 

[JimEverett]

The problem is UTJ, what price are we willing to pay for our morals. It's an age old question. Should we become the world's morality police, I'm not arguing for or against, just posing the question, because whatever side you come down on, there are serious consequences. Should we deal with this question on a national basis? Or a company by company basis? Personally, I believe that individual companies Walmart or Nike can have a more direct effect on the situation, with much less political fallout, then using government negotiations. We don't always have to use a big hammer to get the best results.

More importantly though are the actual tariff schedules in these deals, as well as non "moral" imbalances like currency pegs and subsidies.
I agree with you regarding thei nternal policies of a country. Those issues should be addressed but I would not have nearly as big a problem with our trade policy if the tariff imbalances and other things did not exist.

 

[gavinj]

Because Goolsbee's denial is laughable - he doesnt dispute any other part of the memo - just that one sentence. Please.

First, there was no meeting.

Now, there was a meeting, but, ignore the memo written contemporaneously with the meeting, he never said what everyone else in the room heard. Right.

Just don't stab yourself with those scissors, lol.

------

Goolsbee said he has been surprised that such a banal and trivial meeting with a low-level consulate official has created so much controversy and resulted in such an inaccurate depiction. He said he was invited to the consulate to meet the officials and get a tour.

He said the visit lasted about 40 minutes, and perhaps two to three minutes were spent discussing NAFTA. He said the Canadians asked about Obama's position, and he replied about his interest in improving labor and environmental standards, and they raised some concerns that Obama sounds like a protectionist.

He said he responded that Obama is not a protectionist, but that the Illinois senator tries to strike a balance between the economic struggles of working Americans and recognizing that free trade is good for the economy.

"That's a pretty ham-handed description of what I answered," Goolsbee said of memo's description of "political positioning." "A: In no possible way was that a reference to NAFTA. And B: In no possible way was I inferring that he was going to introduce any policies that you should ignore and he had no intention of enacting. Those are both completely crazy."

 

[dapperdan]

I think you're really making a lot of assumptions on Obama which aren't necessarily true.

Yes, very liberal. :redx: on "extremely" partisan

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Paper_Republicans_embrace_Obamas_bipartisanship_0607.html

Here's the opposition party praising Obama's bipartisanship.

Furthermore, whereas you might see his inexperience and lack of ties to Washington insiders, in 2008 I think it's an advantage.

And I also think you're exaggerating Obama's "inexperience," which is really become more of a talking point rather than reality. True, compared to other politicians on both sides of the aisle, there's a lack of federal experience, but the "least prepared" to actually govern gets another :redx:

Well, here's how I look at it, and it's similar to how I looked at John Kerry in '04. Both men got elected from states where being the Democratic nominee is a virtual shoe-in to win the Senate seat. Once you're the nominee, you can mail it in.

Second, I see Senate nominees for President differently that I see nominees with experience as Governors. Past Governors generally speaking, have more experience in creating compromise in legislating.

Third, I see Obama, specifically, as an extremely inexperienced Senator.

Compare Obama's experience with other politicians running for President of recent vinatge, '04 Bush v Kerry, '00 Bush v Gore, '96 Clinton v Dole, '92 Clinton v Bush, '88 Bush v Dukakis, '84 Reagan v Mondale, '80 Reagan v Carter, '76 Carter v Ford, '72 Nixon v McGovern, '68 Nixon v Humphrey, '64 Johnson v Goldwater, '60 Kennedy v Nixon.

Now look at the above list, Obama is, by far, the least experienced of all of the above candidates. By far.

 

[gavinj]

and at this point, he is probably the least prepared politician in my lifetime to actually govern as President.

lol, wow. As opposed to Bill Clinton and Dubya Bush even? Bush didn't even show up half the time as governor of Texas, he would refuse to read memos longer than 1/5 page, his only responsibility was presiding over executions and he did that about as cavalierly as humanly possible, and delighted in telling everyone how he hadn't read a newspaper in 10 years. That was the guy the GOP couldn't wait to nominate in 2000. "He reminds me of me - hyuck, hyuck. He's the type of guy I could sit down and have a beer with, that is, if he could handle drinking beer."

 

[dapperdan]

More importantly though are the actual tariff schedules in these deals, as well as non "moral" imbalances like currency pegs and subsidies.
I agree with you regarding thei nternal policies of a country. Those issues should be addressed but I would not have nearly as big a problem with our trade policy if the tariff imbalances and other things did not exist.

But, at this point in the game, given all of issues you bring up, all legitimate issues, virtually the entire reason we run trade deficits, at this point, have to do with oil imports.

The decline in the dollar has pretty much balanced out all of our previous trade imbalances, with the exception of oil.

I'm going off the top of my head on this one, going off some reports I read last month, so if my memory is off, feel free to correct me.