February 25, 2008
Trade War in the General? Maybe Not.

Thanks to David Postman for making a point to cover the topic of trade in his year's election cycle. While the issue isn't always high profile, it's importance to Washington state's economy is clear.

As such, some recent coverage has contained some problematic statements for those interested in continuing America's role as a trading partner to the world. When trade pacts with South Korea, Columbia, Panama, and Peru came before Congress in past months, the former two were widely considered to be controversial (at least with Democratic interest groups) while the latter two's approval by Congress appeared more perfunctory. Postman's citation of Hillary Clinton's opposition to the Panama agreement is consequently troubling.

Clinton's call for a "trade time out" is even more worrisome. Globalization and an integrated, modern economy are here whether we like it or not (see Freidman, Tom). Calling a "time out" isn't going to accomplish anything except making America's economy less prosperous as the rest of the world moves forward.

Now, Clinton and Barack Obama are battling about NAFTA, as Postman covered most recently. Pinning the steady decline of the manufacturing base as a portion of the nation's economy since World War II on NAFTA isn't a prudent position. Even without NAFTA the steady, multi-decade changes in technology and globalization would still leave us with the phenomenon known as the Rust Belt.

Mercifully, Obama has moderated his anti-NAFTA rhetoric a bit, talking some sense in the midst of the necessary Democratic primary rhetoric on trade. And the MSM voices whose favor Democrats are used to winning are beginning to tut-tut about the current trade debate, ranging from left-of-center columnist Fromma Harrop - whose column on the topic ran in today's Seattle Times - to the New York Times editorial board.

Based on the current state of affairs, it is reasonable to assume there will be some differences on trade between the Democratic nominee and John McCain, who is an avowed free-trader. Yet, given the pull of the Democratic intelligentsia and chattering class, their nominee isn't likely to become virulently protectionist, even if liberal 527's do.

3/3 UPDATE: Comments turned off due to spam attack.

Posted by Eric Earling at February 25, 2008 10:17 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Free trade is great...as long as it includes labor.

Let's bring down "all" the barriers in North America and allow every professional and laborer to obtain an easy to get NAFTAH (North American Free Trade Agreement for Humans) pass to move around the continent. Forget citizenship...but allow workers to "freely trade" their skills.

Posted by: John Bailo on February 25, 2008 10:31 PM
2. John Bailo, your comments have become very confusing. About a year ago, you were using irony/sarcasm or some other technique when you promised to move out of the State because of its taxing policies.

Your sense of humor continued throughout the year and I was more confused as time went on. Today, you talk about no borders and no citizenship, which is the opposite of what I believe you really believe. Except, today's comment is very similar to many peoples and one of the worries we have today with the potential secretive North American Union that is getting closer and closer to fruition.

In summary, your humor is confusing.

Eric, when it is all said and done, and if Obama wins, I sometimes wonder how he will act as the President. He is a smart guy by all accounts, as well as charismatic. Therefore, if he is so smart, would he destroy our country with the implementation of the "plans" he has? Would he just not fight for them? Or would he just destroy our country by implementing them?

Posted by: swatter on February 26, 2008 07:11 AM
3. swatter -

I think an Obama administration, especially with a Democratic Congress, would be bad news.

Yet, I see signs that for all the liberalism of his voting record and campaign promises, he likes to compromise to get things done. Thus, I don't think he'd end up implementing as radical a policy agenda - given filibusters in the Senate and moderate D's worried about their seats in the House - as he talks about on the stump.

Not that I actually want to try that theory out...

Posted by: Eric Earling on February 26, 2008 07:18 AM
4. IF the democrats every enacted every promise they made to get elected we would have our pay checks signed over to the Government. And they would give us an allowance. And most of the money would be sent to other countries to help the poor but in actuality end up filling Swiss bank accounts with our wealth. Look at Palestine. Billions of dollars were poured into there to help the poor. How else did Arafat get to be one of the richest men in the world with over a Billion Dollars in the Swiss Bank System. Corruption. Our tax dollars used to fill bank accounts of corrupt rulers. So they can live high on the hog. Something similar happend in Russia under Communism. If you were a party member you had all your needs taken care of. If you were a worker and not one of the elite you stood in line for a day to try and get a pair of shoes or a loaf of bread.
That is what you can expect to happen here. The democrats will want the power but they will not permit the freedom to flourish. If you are wealthy because you save money instead of spend it they want it all when you die. Nothing left for the family. Look at the Kennedys many have died yet They do not lose half of their inheritance. Because they are political elitists that put in the loop holes so they do not have to give up their wealth yet a small business owner must sell to pay the inheritance tax. People lose jobs. Because the Goverment demands they give it up. Freedoms will be removed as more liberals take power.
It is the liberal judges that do the most damage. They make the law not judge if a law is valid in accordance to the laws on the books. If you get enough cases eventually the laws on the books are weakened. Look at the weakening of our rights to put laws on the ballot. The Democrats put an emergency clause on all bills that they know will cause a stir and may cause an initiative ballot. TO prevent them from getting on the ballot. And they want to even harder to get signatures. This is the type of person Obama is and the type of administration he will run.

Posted by: David Anfinrud on February 26, 2008 08:20 AM
5. What was it Ross Perot said in 1992 about the need for their to be a "two-way street"?

You would have to be insane to believe that trade-barriers don't matter and that all the United States needs to do to remain competitive in a free-trade global economy is raise standards for schools so that Washington's WASL approved graduates can compete with Haitians willing to work for 19 cents an hour.

Posted by: Chris Van Vechten on February 26, 2008 10:07 AM
6. It shouldn't be "free trade" at all but fair trade. It should be done country by country.....if they levy duty on our products, we then levy duty on thiers. If they put unreasonable criteria on our goods, we do the same on thiers. There should be no US mebership in WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA or any other entity that cedes any US sovereignty. All trade pacts between nations should be a one on one basis. This fact still recognizes global trade is here to stay....but at least we'll have a better handle on what comes into our country. No more lead based toys, poisoned wheat glutten or any other substandard products made in Communist China.

Posted by: Allan Rothlisberg on February 26, 2008 01:19 PM
7. I'm curious about your reference to the 'decline of the manufacturing base.' Manufacturing output has increased 66% since 1993. Hardly what I'd call a decline.

Manufacturing has declined, relative to other industries, as a percentage of GDP. And, true, the manufacturing sector has been shedding jobs for years as factories produce more stuff with fewer workers. Productivity increases are what drives our rising standard of living.

So the phrase 'decline of the manufacturing base' is extremely misleading.

Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on March 1, 2008 08:42 AM