The Resurgent Protectionist Democrats
By Pat Cleary Posted in Economy — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Much has been written since the elections about the struggle for the soul of the Democratic party over trade. Bill Clinton, his Administration and his allies in the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) were unabashed free traders. But some new Dems in the ascendancy are more Dobbsian in their bent.
Two of them -- protectionist Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Sherrod Brown (incoming D-OH) have an op-ed in the WaPo today, blaming the world's ills on trade, hammering away at the two basic -- and false -- commandments for the new Smoots and Hawleys, i.e., that trade agreements cause trade deficits and that companies are frantically relocating overseas to take advantage of low wages in a global "race to the bottom." In case anyone cares, the facts are quite the opposite:
The growing cadre of protectionist Dems -- and some Republicans -- is worrisome. We want more trade agreements because they open markets for our US manufacturers large and small, just do. These so-called "multinationals" are nothing but a mass of small companies in the supply chain, exporting their stuff all over the world.
As the new Congress convenes, the fur will undoubtedly fly over trade. Let's just hope that in the process, the facts do not fall victim to the debate.
« Rethinking the Goals of a National Mortgage Bailout — Comments (45) | Irony of Ironies: The WaPo Touts the 'Card Check' Bill — Comments (3) »
The Resurgent Protectionist Democrats 10 Comments (0 topical, 10 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
In a perfect world, maybe so, but as long as other countries have trade barriers that keep our goods heavily taxed, we need trade agreements to lower those barriers, thereby opening those markets to US-made goods.
Thanks for the note.
whereby we give what we get. Whether or not this would work, I don't know.
But I'd be willing to try. I'm a firm believer in a net positive for everyone when goods and labor move as freely as possible.
_Don't tread on me._
you will find, and what Pat is saying, is that the 'trade agreement' is a 'simple mirror system' that serves to remove the other guy's restrictions to match our lack of restrictions. Of course being created by bureaucrats "simple" is never "simple" in the normal meaning of simple, but bureaucrats don't do "simple" the way the rest of us do :-)
Therein lies the foolishness of the Dorgin/Brown/et al position; it proposes to eliminate the very thing that benefits us. But they are Democrats so that should come as no great surprise.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
...many American manufacturers choose to site production in other countries when targeting foreign consumers, so as to get around tariffs, etc.?
I can tell you for sure that in one of my businesses, we're looking at lining up partners in certain countries to avoid some particularly creative trade barriers. It's not just the 70 and 80% tariffs. It's also the three to four months that our products spend sequestered in customs, only to reach the customers with trashed packaging and occasionally trashed contents.
And some of the countries in question are among our best "friends." I won't name them because some people on this board know my real identity, and I don't need trouble with my foreign customers.
Yes, people set up shop in some countries to get around trade barriers, but again, typically for sale to customers in that country. We need more trade agreements to lower these barriers., That somehow has been lost in the latest trade debate, turned on its ear.
Toyota builds cars here to sell here. Do people think it's only foreign companies that do this sort of thing? Every time we reject a chance to make world trade easier, we leave more time for American companies to have to do the same thing.
--
Run like Reagan!
Do you have any links to your facts? I am interested in reviewing the information.
Thanks
If you look around www.nam.org or www.ShopFloor.org, you can find most of them. They are facts gleaned from analyzing trade data. You can also find it at the Dept of Commerce and USTR sites.
but I see no need for trade agreements. By that I mean that I see little need for international commerce to have a government-stamped "agreement" before it can happen. These agreements often have so many conditions, stipulations and quasi-protectionist details that they are hardly the "free trade" agreements they pretend to be.
To me, free trade truly happens in the absence of these agreements or any government policy. That means no subsidies, no tariffs or any market altering taxes, funding or bariers.
Though these agreements we have help, they are far from ideal. My free trade agreement would fit in a paragraph no longer than this post.
As for the complaints from protectionists, well, they are only looking at half the picture. America exports more than it ever has. Their glass half-empty point of view misses how much bigger the glass has actually gotten.
_Don't tread on me._