The Politics Of Incoherence
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Free Trade | NAFTA | Non-Reality Based Economics — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
When it comes to NAFTA, Barack Obama doesn't make a lick of sense:
Appealing to union voters in a dry wall manufacturing plant in this crucial primary state, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Sunday afternoon said that even though he has repeatedly said the passage of NAFTA was bad for the country, he would not try to repeal it.
"I don't think its realistic for us to repeal NAFTA," he said during a town hall meeting on the economy.
He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago, it was entrenched in the economy, and any attempt to repeal it "would actually result in more job loss ... than job gains."
So . . . NAFTA has been bad for the economy but getting rid of something that has been bad for the economy would make the economy worse so it's better to stick with the bad instead of dumping the bad and avoiding the worse even though what we have right now in NAFTA is bad.
Got it. Of course, it's entirely possible that Barack Obama knows full well that NAFTA has been good for America and doesn't want to repeal it, even though he is perfectly willing to trash it for domestic political consumption.
But I guess that's just too simple an explanation for what's going on here.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | McCain Gets Puerto Rico — Comments (16) »
The Politics Of Incoherence 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
he's not being particularly transparent, but i think it's possible to agree with him on both counts.
if NAFTA in itself is bad and evil, then it would make sense to oppose it then and favor dropping it now.
however, if NAFTA's economic effects at the time were negative (jobs leave), it doesn't necessarily follow that getting rid of it will improve things (jobs come back). it's possible that it will simply deliver another shock to the american economy (which, let's face it, we don't particularly need right now), not to mention the repercussions throughout the global economy.
NAFTA has created a particular constellation of capital which works with it, one way or another. at this point it might make more sense (even for a progressive like obama) to just work with that rather than attempt to convert that capital into a non-NAFTA conglomeration through command-and-control tactics.
like you learn in first aid class: if you get stabbed, the last thing you wanna do is pull out the knife. you end up bleeding to death on the floor, rather than maybe lasting long enough to get to a hospital where they can do it right.
and in any case those who support him don't want it and wouldn't understand it. They want change and hope, both of which are to remain mysterious and are preferred that way.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
He voted against the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. When he was asked by Sean Hannity if he was wrong to have voted against them, he said "No." But he says that the Bush tax cuts should be extended because to let them expire would result in a tax increase.
I guess both Barack Obama and John McCain believe that the legal principle of Stare Decisis applies to economic policy.
McCain claims he was against the Bush tax cuts as passed becasue they didn't have offsetting spending cuts. The tax cuts themselves were good and shouldn't be repealed. He just wanted some spending cuts too.
Obama's position on NAFTA is that it is evil, but he won't do anything about it. (I think Pej had it right in that he knows this isn't true and he's just pandering to the unions.).
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I'm with Fred!
outlining both the negative and positive effects of NAFTA? There are obviously short term negative effects, but I have not seen a reasonable discussion of all sides - short and long term.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
effects as well... The link provided seems very optimistic without any in-depth discussion of negative effects. There are certain defense industries (steel, small machine tools, arms, etc.) that have been lost which increases our dependence on foreign sources. Competition is good for the masses, but the loss of some industries can be problematic for our country.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Find me something--anything--that ties the loss of steel, small machine tools and the arms industry to NAFTA.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
We live in a GLOBAL economy - like it or not !
Does Ill. trade with Ohio ? Does Calif trade with NY ?? So at what point do you say the USA can't trade with X ?? UM .... Washington tried that crap back from about 1928... give or take for more than a decade and we the people got the GREAT DEPRESSION .
Isolationism does not work and is a guaranteed economy killer.
If you want to look at why jobs are leaving you need to look to two primary sources- Washington and unions. Washington - the US has the highest corp tax rate in the world ! Add in a host of labor and environmental regs. and wht woould a company stay ????
Unions may have served a purpose but they have largely outlived that purpose. Today they are another layer of taxation on their members and not much else . They have two goals - raise wages and LOWER productivity/accountability which drives comapnies to seek lower lobor costs - outside the US . I spent seven years upclose with the Teamsters.
Obama and the Shrew are socialist fools and if elected will return the US to stagflation and the economy of the late 1970 s ... bank on it .
It is a little simplistic. Yes, we live in a global economy, but no massive foreign trade is not an unalloyed good. It does bring some negatives to the table. One example is the loss of critical defense industries as was alluded to in an above post.
Other negative effects is to cause a leveling of wages to a level matching the global mean. Look, I am basically a free trader, but there are problems because we do not really have free trade.
We and our trading partners pretend to be free traders while some industries with lobby muscle have some protections and whole industries get subsidies. One of our largest partners China gets preferential treatment while it trounces our patent and copyright laws.
All I am saying is that it is important for governments to appraise some of the problems with free trade and try to mitigate them without killing the goose.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Find me something--anything--to back up your claims that free trade "levels" wages in a distributionist manner (it would appear that is what your "leveling" entails). And find me something--anything--that shows we are losing our defense industry thanks to NAFTA. I agree with the rest of your comment, but that is because you appear to indicate that our market needs to be freer, not less free.
"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid." --Friedrich Nietzsche
He argued arguing that because the trade deal had been passed more than a decade ago,....
The MSM, uninformed, biased and apparently uneducated as well.
I believe Obama should stick to blowing his nose on stage. The crowds seem to love it, and it keeps him from making foolish statements.
/required on-thread comment.
So how has NAFTA been good for America?
I believe that Obama knows its bad, but it fits the democrat globalist agenda so he is not going to repeal it. Use it for fodder yes, but not repeal it.
For consumers prices drop. That alone is a great benefit to the vast majority of the population. The money they make buys more goods for fewer dollars.
For vendors and producers, the picture is less universally good. They actually have to compete for the consumer's dollars. This means that they will have to lower prices (again good for the vast majority of the population) or go out of business (this is bad for both the business owners and the workers employed by them). On the flip side, those producers also have a larger market available to them so some producers actually have to expand production and hire more workers. These effects are about a wash overall but you will hear more about the failures than the successes.
On average the benefits that our society reaps from free trade far outweigh the pain caused to a few.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I (was) with Fred!
Benefits for Mexico. Less jobs at home. Lower standard of living for american workers.
Great deal. Until we have to import everything.
That's a load. When prices drop, the standard of living improves. In industries where we produce good more efficiently or where we have some technological advantage, it's been OUR workers who have benefitted. I live in Caterpillar country (UAW workers and all) and NAFTA has done nothing but improve the economy here.
Yes there are benefits for Mexico as well. Free trade helps both sides of the transaction. It's a win/win game.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
I (was) with Fred!
This sounds like something Obama would say.
I grew up in Flint, MI. It used to be called Buicktown. I spent a couple of summers working at Chevrolet truck assembly.
When McCain said the jobs weren't coming back, he was right. Nobody is going to pay $30-40/hour with better health and pension benefits than your average executive gets to screw in a headlight. I don't think that is rocket science.
What McCain should have added, though, is that there is still a wealth of opportunity for the American economy. As the global economy expands, it is American companies that are positioned to benefit. Construction, equipment, consumer goods, finance, technology, health care, you name it. A rising tide, does indeed, lift all boats.
There are tons of great jobs and careers out there. Get off your ass and go get started and quit waiting for the damn government to give you a handout. We won't get ahead until we get away from this industrial age vision of the American economy.
geopolitical vision is perverted. NAFTA isn't the only free trade agreement he is against. He has been against every free trade agreement with Latin America and our other neighbors. At the same time he has an open borders vision with our borders. Does anyone understand the potential disaster it would be to cut back on free trade with these countries and at the same time invite their citizens in with an open borders policy?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor
He has almost pulled it off.
Let him be.
Until he is done.