The TPP (and similar things) thread

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Hersh said:

The problem is that governments change. Excluding extreme cases, how often do we want to be going in and out of free trade deals.

 

I would like these deals to be stronger on a few different fronts from environmental protection to worker rights to patent protections. These are ways to help our foreign policy goals as well. Countries want to be connected to the U.S. 

I wouldn't want to be going in and out and so when I see a government that I think needs a lot of work, like Vietnam, I'd be hesitant to sign a large comprehensive free trade agreement that includes them.  I think the governments of S. Korea, Japan, and Australia are all pretty stable and are governments that I generally would support to the point I'd be comfortable to sign a large comprehensive free trade agreement with them.

When I was younger, they said similar things with respect to China and trade.  It didn't work.  China is more of a foreign policy issue than ever.  If they are moving towards democracy or cooperating in the larger global frame work, I don't see it.

[Hersh]

Just now, PeterMP said:

 

I wouldn't want to be doing it and when I see a government that I think needs a lot of work, like Vietnam, I'd be hesitant to sign a large comprehensive free trade agreement that includes them.  I think the governments of S. Korea, Japan, and Australia are all pretty stable to the point I'd be comfortable to sign a large comprehensive free trade agreement with them.

When I was young, they said similar things with respect to China and trade.  It didn't work.

I wouldn't compare China and Vietnam but maybe the key is giving a country like Vietnam a probation period of a few years to make necessary changes. Of course, if companies had a bit more social responsibility and didn't cave in the name of profits, that would help. It takes real enforcement to get changes made. 

[visionary]

 

[Hersh]

Where was this John McCain during the campaign season? 

[DogofWar1]

2 minutes ago, Hersh said:

Where was this John McCain during the campaign season? 

Running for re-election in a state where his supporters and Joe Arpaio's supporters tended to overlap more than would be ideal.

Glad to see he's still got some fight.  We need all the smart reasonable Senators we can get.

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Hersh said:

I wouldn't compare China and Vietnam but maybe the key is giving a country like Vietnam a probation period of a few years to make necessary changes. Of course, if companies had a bit more social responsibility and didn't cave in the name of profits, that would help. It takes real enforcement to get changes made. 

Obviously, Vietnam is never going to have the ability to create the foreign policy issues that China does because of the differences in their size and population.

But I've heard in general the idea that closer trade ties diminish the authoritarian nature of governments in terms of domestic and foreign policy for years.

I'm not quite sure of where that idea originated from, but I haven't seen any evidence of it being true in my life time.

 

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Riggo-toni said:

. . . . there is no way to reconcile the fiscal conservatism of the 90s GOP with W's presidency and all that has followed.

 

The fiscal conservatism of the 90s GOP is identical to that of W. And of Trump. 

1). Slash taxes on the rich. (OK, they've changed it a little. Now it's completely eliminate taxes on the rich.)

2). Massive increases on spending for defense contractors. 

3). When the deficit soars, act surprised, blame Democrats, and announce that somebody else needs to do something about that (by cutting Medicare and Social Security). 

 

[TheGoodBits]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

The fiscal conservatism of the 90s GOP is identical to that of W. And of Trump. 

1). Slash taxes on the rich. (OK, they've changed it a little. Now it's completely eliminate taxes on the rich.)

2). Massive increases on spending for defense contractors. 

3). When the deficit soars, act surprised, blame Democrats, and announce that somebody else needs to do something about that (by cutting Medicare and Social Security). 

 

Yep. Been that way for awhile. Reagan, Bush, etc knew full well their tax cuts weren't going to pay for themselves. They knew they would drive up deficits. It's all part of a sick ideology where "fiscal conservatives" actively try to hard the government to try to force future changes (once the damage has become irreversible). 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

[Riggo-toni]

Defense spending fell by a third during the 90s

http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855

And the GOP house under Kasich/Gingrich extended budget spending caps from the 1990 agreement.  The budget went into a surplus, and inflation adjusted spending per capita went down.  How you can say this is the same as W increasing the size of the federal gov't by 7 1/2 % per year - the fastest increase in post war history...

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, Riggo-toni said:

Defense spending fell by a third during the 90s

http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855

And the GOP house under Kasich/Gingrich extended budget spending caps from the 1990 agreement.  The budget went into a surplus, and inflation adjusted spending per capita went down.  How you can say this is the same as W increasing the size of the federal gov't by 7 1/2 % per year - the fastest increase in post war history...

 

1)  Granted, the numbers you and I are looking at may be comparing apples and oranges.  My go-to source for budget unmbers is USGovernmentSpending.com.  This link shows what they call defense spending, inflation adjusted to 2009 dollars, per federal fiscal year.  

And what it shows is:  

FY89:  $533B

FY00: $438

Which represents a cut of 17%

Although, that's also a cut of 17%, from what used to be a record high.  (Well, record, except for WW2.)  

(Granted, there certainly may be some apples and oranges involved, here.  For example, I'm aware that some people consider spending on military retirement to be defense spending, and others don't count it.)  

2)  And I have to confess, I thought we were comparing Reagan to W.  But I've re-read your post, and yes, you were talking about the GOP of the 90s, not the 80s.  (Although, I'll point out:  You are also comparing what the GOP does, when there's a Dem in the White House, to what the GOP does, when they are in charge.)  

[mcsluggo]

18 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Obviously, Vietnam is never going to have the ability to create the foreign policy issues that China does because of the differences in their size and population.

But I've heard in general the idea that closer trade ties diminish the authoritarian nature of governments in terms of domestic and foreign policy for years.

I'm not quite sure of where that idea originated from, but I haven't seen any evidence of it being true in my life time.

 

 

the authoritarian trade focused regimes of the late 70s/80s were Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Chile...   not sure whether there is causality or not, but that is where the narrative comes from.

[Riggo-toni]

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/what-trumps-trade-agenda-means-for-the-us-canada-and-mexico/article32996091/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&service=mobile

What's at stake for Canada, Mexico and the U.S. in Trump's new NAFTA

___________________

U.S. exporters love Canada. It is the single largest market for U.S. goods and services, accounting for 15 per cent of everything the United States sells to the world. There is a high degree of integration within industries such as autos, aerospace and food products. Nearly two-thirds of products and services that cross the Canada-U.S. border are inputs for final products. Car parts typically cross the border multiple times before a vehicle reaches the consumer. And roughly 13 per cent of imports from Canada go into U.S. products sold to third countries.

__________________

 Perpetuating or increasing those restrictions will also make lumber – and U.S. homes – more expensive.

The same applies to livestock. Reinstating U.S. country-labelling rules, which Canada and Mexico successfully removed through previous trade action, would make meat at U.S. grocery stores pricier.

__________________

 Mexico might respond with duties of its own, which could hit some of the top five U.S. exports to Mexico: machinery, electronic products, vehicles, oil and plastics.

And there is something else Mr. Trump might want to ponder. NAFTA has helped Mexico develop a middle class and a more diversified economy. Walling it off again would send it into a downward spiral of poverty and instability – precisely the conditions that triggered previous waves of illegal immigration.

[FanboyOf91]

 

[DogofWar1]

If they didn't want Chinese imports, then maybe they shouldn't have bought so many MAGA hats.

On a more serious note, I wonder what the estimated votes would be if you increased the price of goods to match a reality of fewer imports.  Everyone wants cheap goods, good jobs, and to buy American.  But just like grades/social life/sleep in grad school, you can't have all three.

[TheGreatBuzz]

I wonder if rolling back some unnecessary regulations will help with the help price of American goods?  I've always thought (and I am by no means an expert in the field) that the reason companies go overseas is because it's cheaper.  And it's cheaper because of things like less safety regulations, child labor laws, minimum wage, etc.  Now I'm not saying we need to get rid of all that here but I see a lot of wasted time and resources in the workforce that has to be driving up costs.  So I guess the questions are 1) is it right to so workers must get certain minimum standards but then buy from somewhere that doesn't have those standards and 2) is there anything we can do to lower the costs of doing business here with putting our workers in grave danger?

[No Excuses]

The entry of China into the WTO was a significant moment in human history and I think for the most part, it's been a good thing in terms of accelerating growth all across the world.

Ultimately the failure has been to provide adequate resources and a safety net for people that were displaced by loss of industry at home.

I think to some extent, it's the downside of being such a massive superpower nation. We literally have (or had) almost every industry within our country. And that was always going to be hard to sustain in a highly connected global economy that doesn't have uniform labor laws and wages. 

It's kind of interesting that we're hitting the peak of anti-globalization sentiment right now amongst the working class. Because I think at the moment, the biggest danger to the working class isn't more free trade, but rapid advances in automation. I wonder when we will heat the peak of anti-technology sentiment.

[No Excuses]

9 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I wonder if rolling back some unnecessary regulations will help with the help price of American goods?  I've always thought (and I am by no means an expert in the field) that the reason companies go overseas is because it's cheaper.  And it's cheaper because of things like less safety regulations, child labor laws, minimum wage, etc.  Now I'm not saying we need to get rid of all that here but I see a lot of wasted time and resources in the workforce that has to be driving up costs.  So I guess the questionsame are 1) is it right to so workers must get certain minimum standards but then buy from somewhere that doesn't have those standards and 2) is there anything we can do to lower the costs of doing business here with putting our workers in grave danger?

 

With globalization, the fundamental question to any economy is how its structured presently and how it projects in the future. With our free trade agreements and trade policies with WTO members, our federal government and business sector essentially made the decision that a broad manufacturing sector is not in the best long term interests of our economy.

We still have a manufacturing sector, but to maintain our edge globally, we shifted to an economy more centered around data, information processing, financial services and technology. For some things like the garment industry, it would require us to really roll back tons of regulations to compete with Bangladesh etc. That comes with the additional hazards that accompany poor/inadequate labor laws: things like low paying jobs, poor health standards, lack of healthcare access etc. 

I don't think the solution to America's economy is the creation of more low paying jobs.

I don't know if rolling back labor regulations will really make much of a difference because the manufacturing industry doesn't require as many workers as it did in the past. You can get higher productivity from a much smaller group, and most likely within the next decade, we may see another surge in productivity while needing less labor.

[FanboyOf91]

China didn't win, the US defeated itself.

[zoony]

I'm not sure that free trade deals are as cut and dry as some would make them out to be. No doubt that there are benefits, but there are downsides too. China has enjoyed most favored nation trade status into a bid to overtake the United States as a global superpower

most in favor of free trade argue from a macro level. They tend to ignore the micro level

not taking a position either way on TPP but I don't think it's as cut and dry as some advocate

[FanboyOf91]

This too shall pass.

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

...?

[visionary]

 

[FanboyOf91]

[Larry]

Was under the impression that "US Corporate Taxes" were on PROFITS.