[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Democrats’ cheap shots at Nafta (FINANCIAL TIMES EDITORIAL) 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 Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1.
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
#3. To: lodwick (#1)
You got that exactly right.
The nail in the coffin was giving China preferred trade status/WTO in 2000.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||