We have Very. Serious. People. in DC that know what is good for us. They know that when we lose our jobs, and our factories, and our farms, that there are are higher principals involved. People losing their livelihood, unable to fill their gas tanks, and relegated to emergency rooms for health care are merely "emotional." And, God forbid, they sometimes become "protectionists."
Other national capitals have Very. Serious. People. too. The French, for example. In Paris. And the Brits in London.
The French foreign miniister, who has a job, said this.
“Protectionism is trendy at the moment,” she said in an interview. “We need to turn that risk of extreme protectionism into something positive, and I think regulators, governments and international organizations have a responsibility to offer an alternative path that includes more regulation and policy coordination.”
The British foreign secretary, David Miliband, last week "urged America’s presidential candidates to stay committed to free trade."
We have a seismic shift going on. Trade agreements gut a country's ability to respond to problems in its own economy. The agreements the U.S. is considering allow currency manipulation, import taxes, foreign subsidies, foreign government owned investment vehicles, and many other mechanisms for non-U.S. countries to access the richest consumers in the world.
Thus, we have huge debt. We have huge trade deficits. Income inequality increases. Our food and factory production declines, leaving us narrowly reliant on financial services, health care and government jobs.
But those facts are dismissed with the waive of a European wrist. And an American wrist, by the way. They need only say "its trendy to be a protectionist." Because they are serious people.
Can someone tell me how anyone can put a "free trade" label on commerce between the U.S. and China?
A May 15, 2008 BNA report (Vol. 25, No. 20) discusses an upcoming WTO trade policy review of China. This is a subscription only piece, so I can't link to it. Here are some quotes.
China's exchange rate system has been a source of trade tensions with the United States, where China has been accused of keeping the yuan artificially low vis-avis the U.S. dollar in order to promote export growth. The yuan was pegged to the dollar until July 2005, but since then China has allowed a restricted float of thecurrency.
Funny how everyone is afraid to say "currency manipulation". The proper term is really currency misalignment, then you don't have to depose Chinese government leaders to ask about their intent to manipulate. Its the elephant in the room, and all the party-goers avert their eyes and whisper. (Read more).
This from Rasmussen today.
Udall - 47%
Schaffer - 41%
Rasmussen is a top tier pollster. The firm's latest poll of the Colorado Senate race shows Mark Udall (D) gaining against Schaeffer (R). They are competing to replace retiring Republican Wayne Allard. Rasmussen had them tied two months ago, but Udall is gaining strength.
I don't know where they stand on trade. But here is some evidence, allowing me to jump to wild, unsubstantiated conclusions.
Udall represents Colorado's Fourth District, as he seeks the Senate job. He is not a wacko free trader, but not trustworthy to support trade reform. He opposed CAFTA, but supported other trade deals. This from his website.
As a Member of Congress I have not been silent on these issues. I have supported numerous trade agreements that have benefited Colorado without disadvantaging American workers, but I have opposed those, like the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), that have not included provisions addressing the unfair advantage of countries with lower environmental and labor standards.
Which trade agreements benefited Colorado without disadvantaging workers? Apparently the Peru FTA and the Bahrain FTA were good for Colorado without disadadvantaging workers, because he voted for them. Funny. They were NAFTA retreads. And Udall has not signed on as a co-sponsor for the currency manipulation prevention bill - Ryan-Hunter, HR 2942. Why not? I can't count him as a trade reform supporter. He seems to be blowing with the political winds now, hedging his bets.
Schaffer served three terms as a Colorado Congressman, from 1997-2002. The Club for Growth has endorsed him, which is a bad sign. They are the wacko-est of the wacko free traders. He voted for Fast Track in 2001. He voted for normalized trade relations with China in 2000. Both bad moves. My bet is he never saw a trade agreement he did not like, and probably did not read them, like Thomas Friedman. You can't get Club for Growth endorsement without that.
Eamonn Fingleton is the author of "In the Jaws of the Dragon: America's Fate in the Coming Era of Chinese Hegemony." He focuses upon the rise of Asia and the risks to the U.S. Fingleton was the featured speaker at CPA's Third Issues Forum on March 12, 2008.
Mr. Fingleton wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, which was printed today. And which I reprint below the fold.
The decline in importance of the nation state. Their inability to address problems. Their removal from relevance.
This, some argue, is the intended or unintended, as the case may be, consequence of the trade agreements we sign. The agreements that bar governments from taking action that could impinge on the investment-backed expectations of foreign corporations. The agreements that bar countries from improving their food and product safety laws.
Thomas Friedman, the man who supports every trade agreement he did not read, writes of a book called "Superclass" by David Rothkpof.
Mr. Rothkopf’s book argues that on many of the most critical issues of our time, the influence of all nation-states is waning, the system for addressing global issues among nation-states is more ineffective than ever, and therefore a power void is being created. This void is often being filled by a small group of players — “the superclass” — a new global elite, who are much better suited to operating on the global stage and influencing global outcomes than the vast majority of national political leaders.
Democracy is good. Messy, but good. We can make laws that benefit the voters. And we can throw the bums out. This irritates those who finance the bums that are not thrown out, and achieve the laws that don't benefit the voters. We do, indeed, need to guard against the trade agreements causing democratic decay.
