See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Democrats’ cheap shots at Nafta (FINANCIAL TIMES EDITORIAL)
Source:
Financial Times
URL Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/39b15bc4-e635-11dc-8398-0000779fd2ac.html
Published: Feb 29, 2008
Author: Financial Times Editorial Board
Post Date: 2008-02-29 14:44:56 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 74
Comments: 5
Democrats’ cheap shots at Nafta Published: February 28 2008 19:59 | Last updated: February 28 2008 19:59 The most disturbing aspect of the US primary season is the Democratic consensus that liberal trade is opposed to the national interest. The North American Free Trade Agreement has destroyed jobs and lowered living standards in the US, say the Democrats, and must be either rewritten or abandoned. Barack Obama, now the favourite to secure both the nomination and the White House, once had intelligent things to say about trade. He has lately positioned himself as a hardliner among the hardliners, assailing Hillary Clinton, who also now opposes Nafta, for ever having supported it. On balance, Nafta was a good agreement – though far from perfect, and oversold in a way that exposed it to the current backlash. It has expanded trade and improved efficiency across the region. But too many advocates of Nafta said that it would create jobs. This was as false as the new argument that says it has destroyed them. Trade policy has no effect on net employment: you can as easily have full employment, or chronic unemployment, under autarky as under free trade. The purpose of liberal trade is not to “create jobs” – the term is a badge of economic illiteracy – but to change the pattern of work and raise living standards overall. As with new technology, there are winners and losers. The right policy is not to turn back integration, any more than it would be to ban the fork-lift truck. It is to ensure that the overall gains are widely shared and the victims get help. The saddest thing is that the Democrats who understand this reasoning believe that the party’s supporters are too dull to grasp it, and must be fed some protectionist red meat. The challenge, they believe, is to pander to ignorance while doing the least harm. Good policy rarely happens that way. And is the logic of trade really so hard to grasp – or to sell? Bill Clinton gambled on making the forward-looking case for economic integration, and Nafta was one of his signal political wins. Today’s economic conditions are less favourable, to be sure, but the substance of the matter has not changed. On this crucial issue, Mr Obama and the Democrats have been seized with a kind of intellectual and political cowardice. The implications of this lack of spine are grave – and extend beyond economics. The next Democratic administration promises to repair US alliances and standing in the world. A worthy aim. Yet its first act, the party says, will be to tell its closest neighbours that the rules they are all agreed to are defunct – and if they do not like it, tough luck.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Join the Ron Paul Revolution The US looking out for its best interests? THE HORROR!!!11! I wouldn't worry, though. Much like the Iraq war I feel the "D"s will be talking more than they will doing.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
You got that exactly right.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. The nail in the coffin was giving China preferred trade status/WTO in 2000.
Mark If America is destroyed, it may be by Americans who salute the flag, sing the national anthem, march in patriotic parades, cheer Fourth of July speakers - normally good Americans who fail to comprehend what is required to keep our country strong and free - Americans who have been lulled into a false security (April 1968).---Ezra Taft Benson, US Secretary of Agriculture 1953-1961 under Eisenhower
Pure B.S. Bill Clinton, in large part, got into office going AGAINST NAFTA, and as soon as he was in, went fast track with it. This will be the same. People never learn; it matters not what a man (or woman) says. All that matters is their actions. All that the whores in Washington, DC, are saying right now is what they think will help them get elected, so they can cash in on serving their real masters. And still people look for excuses to chose the lessor of two (or three) evils.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. Attention, Shrub; A life of evil is ultimately a life of wretchedness.
Giant 'sucking-sound' bump to this blarney.
Freedom*Peace*Prosperity
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
Yet its first act, the party says, will be to tell its closest neighbours that the rules they are all agreed to are defunct – and if they do not like it, tough luck.
#3. To: lodwick (#1)
Giant 'sucking-sound' bump to this blarney.
Lord Acton
#4. To: lodwick (#1)
#5. To: aristeides (#0)
Bill Clinton gambled on making the forward-looking case for economic integration, and Nafta was one of his signal political wins.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest