Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric (1 Viewer)

[dapperdan]

Things would have only been marginally better, if at all, in the late 70s with a Republican in office instead of Carter.

Depends. You speak generically of "a Republican". The choice in '76 was Ford or Reagan. Reagan was the inspirational leader of the '76 convention, Ford had pretty much wrapped up the nomination by then.

The wage-price controls were uniquely Nixon's. I would say the single worst economic policy of my lifetime, and the worst set of economic policies of my lifetime.

The problem was that we had back-to-back Administrations with terrible economic policies. Nixon deserves all the blame he gets for manipulating economic policy around his political aspirations. With Nixon I'm quite cynical towards his economic policies. With Carter, imo, he was much more pure of heart, but much less competent, especially during his first two years.

If Reagan had continued the incompetent policies of Carter and Nixon, he would've continued the same lousy results. It wasn't just happenstance that the economy turned around under Reagan's tenure.

 

[blackadder]

Depends. You speak generically of "a Republican". The choice in '76 was Ford or Reagan. Reagan was the inspirational leader of the '76 convention, Ford had pretty much wrapped up the nomination by then.

The wage-price controls were uniquely Nixon's. I would say the single worst economic policy of my lifetime, and the worst set of economic policies of my lifetime.

The problem was that we had back-to-back Administrations with terrible economic policies. Nixon deserves all the blame he gets for manipulating economic policy around his political aspirations. With Nixon I'm quite cynical towards his economic policies. With Carter, imo, he was much more pure of heart, but much less competent, especially during his first two years.

If Reagan had continued the incompetent policies of Carter and Nixon, he would've continued the same lousy results. It wasn't just happenstance that the economy turned around under Reagan's tenure.

I know everyone wants to believe in magic, in the power of rhetoric and inspiration...

But, really, it was mostly timing and not the unique wisdom or ability of Ronald Reagan. The first two years of Reagan's presidency were just as disastrous as Carter's years. 1982 was the deepest recession in our history since the Great Depression.

Factors just as important as tax cuts and defacto Keynesian deficit spending to the turnaround, IMO were:

1) Paul Volker (a Carter appointee) wrung inflation from the economy at all costs. This contributed to the depth of the recession but set the stage for recovery.

2) The price of oil collapsed due to a combination of reduced demand during the 82 recession but also because significant new sources of supply began reach the market in the early 80s.

The oil companies, in response to the price spikes of the 70s massively invested in new production in places like Angola, Nigeria, Indonesia, etc. and other producers like Mexico increased production in the face of high prices.

This produced an oil glut in the 80s and cheap energy underpinned the economy in that decade.

This to would have happened to some extent regardless of who was in office in the 1980s. The rate at which the general price level declined due to the collapse of oil prices would have even made wage and price control policies far less disruptive to the market because wages and prices would have stabilized or declined on their own.

Likewise in the 80s we beagn to see the first movement to offshore production in China, which also reinforced the stabilization of the price level. Ronald Reagan did not have much to do with that development other than to not get in the way of it.

Again, I believe most President's get too much blame and too much credit for what happens in the macroeconomy. It's far too complex.

Nixons wage and price controls, continued into the Carter years, compounded problems. But take away the wage and price controls and people would still remember the 70s as a terrible economic time and there still would have been a revolution in Iran.

 

[blackadder]

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.

This has been my point for years.

In reality the power, prestige and influence of "American ideals," it could be argued, is inversely correlated to the amount of meddling we do and to our global military footprint.

The more we push the issue, the less we are liked and the more the "brand power" of "America" is eroded. We spent over 100 year as a non-meddling power of example (at least not meddling beyond our own hemisphere or our own direct frontier) and in that time we became the most influential and almost universally liked "national brand."

Most of the countries of South America modeled Constitutions after ours. We inspired thier separation from Spain and their own movement toward democracy and it did not require direct intervention or any blood or treasure. The power of example sufficed.

Since 1950 we have lost a lot of power and influence beyond sheer military force or economic leverage because we have adopted a cynical policy of permanent intervention and become the busybody nation that has appointed itself the worldwide arbiter of which government, societies and religions are legitimate and which are not.

People don't like it when their own family members meddle in their personal lives, let alone strangers. It's the same writ large on the international scene.

This is especially problematic when the meddling entails massive dislocation and blood sacrifice to the societies targeted for "improvement." We never ask these people if they think millions of dead and lost decades of development are worth it to them to be transformed to our liking. We just do it and ignore the real hardships imposed on others because "it's for their own good" in the long run.

Throttle back on the unilateral meddling. The world is always going to be a messy place. You will not change that no matter how much money and blood you expend.

Human nature will not change. Nor, I guess, will the urge for some to try to change it.

 

[saintfan-n-alex]

The retort from the pro-globalization lobbies would be that all can benefit by investing their savings in the companies that profit from one world economy and by looking for mutual funds that let you invest in emerging markets.

But it's kind of chicken and egg: you have to get a wage that leaves money left over to invest.

that is why you hear some of the CEO, higher wage earners and Political types talking about th strong economy is, they base it on the performance of their portfolio.

im in the middle, i have a 401k (that is tanking now) and earn a decent wage for my area, though i cant afford to buy a house due to job stability, not only in my current job but in other opportunities in my field as after this job ill probably have to relocate.

i could only image how it is for those who are now like i used to be, unable to sleep due to the constant playing of scenarios in my brain on how to pay all th bills with the salary i earn.

bad thing is i dont see this country turning this thing around due to the disconnect of the higher wage earning upper management types and those that work under them.

 

[blackadder]

that is why you hear some of the CEO, higher wage earners and Political types talking about th strong economy is, they base it on the performance of their portfolio.

im in the middle, i have a 401k (that is tanking now) and earn a decent wage for my area, though i cant afford to buy a house due to job stability, not only in my current job but in other opportunities in my field as after this job ill probably have to relocate.

i could only image how it is for those who are now like i used to be, unable to sleep due to the constant playing of scenarios in my brain on how to pay all th bills with the salary i earn.

bad thing is i dont see this country turning this thing around due to the disconnect of the higher wage earning upper management types and those that work under them.

The middle class is defintely poorer today than it was 10 years ago. I base this on my experiences and what I see happening amongst my friends.

I bought a Condo about 7-8 years ago on my own. I was making pretty good money at the time, but I grew to hate my job. The condo started to appreciate in the housing run-up and more than doubled. At that point I sold it, took the profit and quit the job I hated. I got out of the condo about 9-10 months before the problems set into the housing market.

I knew what was coming.

Anyway, in the interest of quality of life I took a job that I like better at about a 15-20% lower salary. If housing prices had stayed in line with boader inflation trends that would have been fine.

But even in the current environment the same condo I owned is now out of reach for me stricly on the basis of a single income. Housing prices in my area remain close to double what they were 7 years ago but my income has plateaud and flatlined since then.

Many people I know are in the same siutation.

Housing is the single biggest expense for most families, yet it is left out of the CPI. We've had an inflation problem in housing for years and the standard of living has stagnated or declined for the Middle class in most "desirable" urban areas as a result.

The housing bubble was not directly a symptom of globalization, but it adds to the forces pressuring the middle class and makes the average US worker more susceptible to the competitive pressures of lower cost labor in other countries.

I don't see it changing without a deeper economic crisis that riles up and politically mobilizes the middle class. Congress is owned by the people who profit most from globalization, so as long as most voters go along quietly the status quo will reign.

My best advice is to try to keep improving skills and encourage your children to get serious about their education and skills so they can compete. The prevailing philosophy in the world today worships economic efficiency -- the bottom line. That is what the government will protect.

If that means Indians and Chinese do the best job and work hardest for the lowest wage, then Americans have to match their price or watch the work go elsewhere. This is the prevailing dynamic in the world economy today.

 

[guillermo]

When a leader (and we have them in the 3 countries) start to denounce NAFTA immediatelly I start to think on how unprepared they are about the history of the agreement, the letter of the agreement, and what the agreement means, not only for the 3 countries, but for international trade.

I am not surprised at all about the democrats campaigning about NAFTA, at the end, the agreement was negotiated by a republican administration in the US, a conservative government in Canada, and Carlos Salinas. Both Bill Clinton and Jean Chrétien both campaigned against the treaty and pulled back at the moment they gained power.

NAFTA is not only an economic tool for development of the 3 countries, it is also a first mechanism of protection against other economic powers. In blunt terms, NAFTA recognizes that the economic threat are not the members of the treaty, but China, India, the asian tigers and the EU.

Case and point is the automobile industry. Yes, some jobs were lost by the re-distribution of plants (all countries lost jobs in different sectors because of the treaty), but if you look at the development of new brands in China and India, you know that the american auto makers are more worried about the indian "Tatas" and the chinese brands that are already in Europe then with the opening of a new factory in Hermosillo.

The rethoric of opening NAFTA to negotiations is based on the idea that the US made a favour to Canada and Mexico on signing the accord. Not true. Both Mexico and Canada will be very interested in opening the treaty in certain chapters (specially the energy sector, wood, water, agriculture, transport) and a new negotiation may not favour US interest. McCain understands this, as well as Harper and Calderon. I think the oppositions understand this too, but it is on their interest to up with the rethoric.

Finally, not everything coming from NAFTA is good, one thing that should have been reviewed for a long time now is the regional development (in all 3 countries). At the moment of signing the agreement, there were no political conditions or will to consider plans that will allow regions to transform their economies to be prepared for the new conditions. I am thinking on areas like the Maritime provinces in Canada, Michigan and Ohio in the US, and centre-southern Mexico. These regions were economically crushed with the new conditions and nothing has been done to correct the problem.

 

[SaintsFan11]

Report: NAFTA-Gate Leaker Said Hillary's People Were Reassuring Canada, Too
By Eric Kleefeld - March 5, 2008, 11:33PM

By Eric Kleefeld - March 5, 2008, 11:33PM
The NAFTA-Gate controversy has taken another turn, one that could potentially boomerang back on Hillary Clinton after initially damaging Barack Obama.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php

 

[Sabine]

problem with NAFTA within politics is:

some parts of the country benefit - some are hurt by it - any stance they take will put some off while gaining the approval of others..

Ohio is hurt by NAFTA - Texas benefits so in the course of a few days the candidates have to change positions on the subject - not bring it up or try to come up with some sort of NAFTA revision that helps everyone without diminishing the advantages it provides to the states that gain from it.

Clinton did talk about NAFTA here.

People forget, or may not realize, that while NAFTA has benefited the Texas economy, some of NAFTA's fallout and failures is also felt more here than in most states. You may remember Clinton saying in the debate that she wanted to attach stronger environmental and labor standards to NAFTA and add an enforcement mechanism. She's been saying that for a long time, and I don't see people here having an issue with that. The people that live in communities along the Rio Grande can see that we need those changes and many have begged for it. There are countless action groups in the borderlands - environmentalist, human rights, labor rights, etc.

Factories and assemble plants south of the river, the "maquiladoras" have been around for several decades. They grew a lot through the 70s, 80s, and 90s, but many have closed in recent years as assembly moved to places like China. Still, there are a few thousands of these plants along border, and they account for a large percentage of Mexico's exports. Many were/are US companies taking advantage of lower wages, less environmental regulation and low labor /safety standards in Mexico. These plants offered higher wages than other parts of Mexico, so they pulled Central and South Mexicans north. The border cities grew faster than the infrastructure could handle. Living conditions in the areas surrounding the maquiladoras were atrocious. Raw sewage just seeped into the ground and poured into the Rio Grande, as did toxic chemicals from the industries. The environmental impact was huge. A variety of health problems and birth defects followed. Mexico has environmental laws - they were just ill equipped to handle it, horribly undermanned and underfunded, and needed these industries for their struggling economy.

When Mexico's maquiladoras industry was hit by manufacturers moving again, many of their Mexican plants were closed - too often without the proper disposal of toxic waste and materials. Many of the Mexican workers that lost their jobs moved north again. Some stop just this side of the river adding to the impoverished Texas borderland, while others moved deeper into Texas and other parts of the US.

I think some of the intended benefit of NAFTA to Mexico just didn't materialize - at least not on the scale some hoped. It was sold as a way for Mexico to springboard forward, to use the economic growth to build infrastructure that would facilitate even more growth - not only in the borderlands but deeper into Mexico. Building good roads and highways would have opened up more trade possibilities, including trade with countries further south where perpetually poor nations struggle with instability - sending more people north.

A candidate stumping on renegotiating NAFTA to address some of its shortfalls doesn't offend any Texans I know.