This election cycle threatens to do serious long term damage to US trade. Sanders, Trump and now Clinton (who I believe knows better) are dumbing down the campaign.
Trade myths and realities
Trump, Clinton and Sanders spread misleading rhetoric.
". . . An open trade policy has served the United States well. It has advanced our strategic goals — supporting Europe’s recovery in the 1950s and 1960s, improving relations with Mexico in the 1990s — while presenting U.S. consumers with more choices and lower prices. The constant problem is that the benefits are widely disbursed while the social costs concentrate on unemployed workers and bankrupt companies.
We have yet to cope with this, in part because it’s hard to draw a line between firms that fail from foreign competition and ones that fail from domestic competition. A similar dilemma involves the dollar. A “strong” dollar is good for the world; it creates certainty and confidence. But a strong dollar also penalizes U.S. exporters and subsidizes U.S. importers. Satisfying both goals simultaneously is tough.
The campaign’s misleading rhetoric is dangerous if it leads the next president to start a trade war (Trump) or to repudiate the TPP (Clinton and Sanders). It’s better to police for currency manipulation and illegal subsidies. The alternatives have more political appeal but would involve a huge self-inflicted economic wound."
Yes we have trade deficits but its not for the reasons they say it is. this guy has a limited view... he talks about a strong dollar being part of it.. yet he forgets that the us dollar was quite weak it only rebounded in Nov 2014 to where it was at in Jan 2009.
he uses that excuse that we are less integrated into the global economy by attempting to compare our exported goods with chinas exported goods a ridiculous comparison as China is a goods economy.
He also doesn't mention this from the Dept of Commerce statement from March 4 - which states we have a 4.8% gain in deficit and we are exporting 6.6% less and importing 4.5% less. So trade stagnation along with greater trade loss.
"Year-over-year, the goods and services deficit increased $2.1 billion, or 4.8 percent, from
January 2015. Exports decreased $12.5 billion or 6.6 percent. Imports decreased $10.5 billion
or 4.5 percent."
Not a good article.
Public Citizen was an opponent of NAFTA from the beginning and continues their advocacy via "research."
Meanwhile, from the OP:
In this bitter campaign, one area of agreement unites the major candidates: trade. Bernie Sanders brags that he’s opposed all recent trade agreements; Hillary Clinton now rejects the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), President Obama’s signature trade success that she once supported; and Donald Trump blames incompetent U.S. trade negotiators for devastating job losses to China that might be cured by a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports.
You should take all this with a boulder of salt.
True, a flood of Chinese imports over the past 15 years has cost hordes of U.S. jobs. In a recent paper, three respected economists — David Autor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, David Dorn of the University of Zurich and Gordon Hanson of the University of California at San Diego — estimated the loss of manufacturing jobs at 985,000 from 1999 to 2011.
But this large number needs context. Over the same period, all U.S. manufacturing jobs dropped 5.8 million; the share caused by China was a bit less than one-fifth. When the economists added China’s impact on non-manufacturing firms, the job decline more than doubled to 2.4 million. Still, that’s less than 2 percent of total payroll employment of 131 million in 2011 and 143 million now. A more powerful job destroyer was the Great Recession (8.7 million jobs lost over two years).
In addition, there are export jobs. With U.S. exports about 80 percent of imports, they offset most — though not all — of trade-related job loss. In 2014, exports supported 11.7 million jobs, says the Commerce Department: 7.1 million for goods (aircraft, medical equipment) and 4.6 million for services (software, films). . . .
This election cycle threatens to do serious long term damage to US trade. Sanders, Trump and now Clinton (who I believe knows better) are dumbing down the campaign.
Trade myths and realities
Trump, Clinton and Sanders spread misleading rhetoric.
". . . An open trade policy has served the United States well. It has advanced our strategic goals — supporting Europe’s recovery in the 1950s and 1960s, improving relations with Mexico in the 1990s — while presenting U.S. consumers with more choices and lower prices. The constant problem is that the benefits are widely disbursed while the social costs concentrate on unemployed workers and bankrupt companies.
We have yet to cope with this, in part because it’s hard to draw a line between firms that fail from foreign competition and ones that fail from domestic competition. A similar dilemma involves the dollar. A “strong” dollar is good for the world; it creates certainty and confidence. But a strong dollar also penalizes U.S. exporters and subsidizes U.S. importers. Satisfying both goals simultaneously is tough.
The campaign’s misleading rhetoric is dangerous if it leads the next president to start a trade war (Trump) or to repudiate the TPP (Clinton and Sanders). It’s better to police for currency manipulation and illegal subsidies. The alternatives have more political appeal but would involve a huge self-inflicted economic wound."
The constant problem is that the benefits are widely disbursed while the social costs concentrate on unemployed workers and bankrupt companies.
It’s better to police for currency manipulation and illegal subsidies. The alternatives have more political appeal but would involve a huge self-inflicted economic wound.
So trade stagnation along with greater trade loss. "Year-over-year, the goods and services deficit increased $2.1 billion, or 4.8 percent, from January 2015. Exports decreased $12.5 billion or 6.6 percent. Imports decreased $10.5 billion
or 4.5 percent."
It is not so much the election cycle that is threatening us as the level of misunderstanding of economic law among the electorate.
So, going by the song lyrics and your refute. You are saying there are no struggling American workers?And it's all false.
Our off shoring is supposed to create new consumers for us to sell to.
In fifty to a hundred years. "Over time..."
Still, it's true - that is the effect trade has. It increases global business, and foreign incomes that access American products.
We'd be blind to overlook it, and to think (like you) that it is unimportant is sheer foolishness.
An error which, we, as a nation, are also highly capable of committing ... especially with all the Replicant talk at the moment dishing anything that "aint Amurikun" ...
What is it the great under educated unwashed seems to be ignorant of?
Which resulted from the Great Recession that started in 2009 and of which the effects have been lasting.
The world is and has been undergoing for some time a recessionary period, though coming out of it - even some countries in Europe, if not all.
So trade figures in such an environment are naturally lower than they would be ordinarily ...
Of choosing good candidates.
The TPP was an interesting thing. It actually benefited small businesses some and was completely quiet on the lips of both Democrats and Republicans.
So, going by the song lyrics and your refute. You are saying there are no struggling American workers?
That and only the working class took a haircut lifting the rest of the world up.
Everybody was supposed to benefit. That isn't happening either. I honestly can't see a model based on current trends that doesn't end in dystopia.
If the American Worker can't compete in manufacturing, then they should find another line. There's always lawn work or agriculture. Roofing, plumbing, or electrician also is good.There is a price to pay for everything and in this case the price is millions of American jobs. I guess for somebody whose only concern is toilet paper at five cents less a package - screw the American workers because I can now wipe by behind more cheaply.
Which is like telling me its my fault for not finding good to dine upon at McDonalds.
If the American Worker can't compete in manufacturing, then they should find another line. There's always lawn work or agriculture. Roofing, plumbing, or electrician also is good.
Can you explain how the American worker is suppose to compete against wages making less than a dollar an hour?
very very easy!! The American workers are 95% employed, making 15 times what the Chinese workers are making and so competing very very very well!! And, they could be doing a lot better in terms of wages if liberal taxes unions and deficits did not drive jobs off shore. Make sense??
except they do not live in China.
no idea what you mean or what your point is
The point is who the hell cares about what people in China make and why did you bring it up in the first place?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?