Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 03:46 AM Dec 2014

Thinking about the TPP. FDR regarding tariffs:

FDR favored trade but cautioned:

"A tariff is a tax on certain goods passing from the producer to the consumer. It is laid on these goods rather than on other similar ones because they originate abroad. This is obviously protection for the producers of competing of goods at home. Peasants who live at lower levels than our farmers, workers who are sweated to reduce costs, ought not to determine the price of American goods. There are standards which we desire to set for ourselves. Tariffs should be large enough to maintain living standards which we set for ourselves. But if they are higher they become a particularly vicious kind of direct tax which is laid doubly on the consumer. Not only are the prices of foreign goods raised, but those of domestic good also.

pages 145-146, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Looking Forward, first published in 1933

I believe that statement sets the standard by which our trade agreements should be judged. Do the agreements contain provisions that will protect the living standard of Americans, farmers and working people?

Most of our current trade agreements do not.

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thinking about the TPP. FDR regarding tariffs: (Original Post) JDPriestly Dec 2014 OP
Did it work? Did it work? Anyone?... Recursion Dec 2014 #1
Thanks for that astute assessment, Rush. RiverLover Dec 2014 #4
Here's an actual liberal view(which is of course correct). Maybe you can post something from Fox RiverLover Dec 2014 #7
+1 an entire shit load. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #18
Another fail, Recursion. Scuba Dec 2014 #9
+1 You nailed it. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #19
Let's see... in FDR's first term... MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #10
FDR was right on. Tariffs should protect the living standards of the American worker. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #2
Thank you. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #12
"In FDR's view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor pampango Dec 2014 #16
Very little of the TPP has anything to do with what tariffs are still existing. djean111 Dec 2014 #3
Good info. Thanks~nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #5
I certainly hope you did not think that with my post I was suggesting that the TPP is just about JDPriestly Dec 2014 #13
K & R Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #6
K&R Scuba Dec 2014 #8
as djean notes up above, TPP is much worse than just tariffs Doctor_J Dec 2014 #11
Dr. Dean talked about the need for tariffs when he was running for president Mosby Dec 2014 #14
Of course, he campaigned against and negotiated away most of the high tariffs he inherited pampango Dec 2014 #15
Unfortunately, as our high trade deficit and declining wages prove, even multilateral trade JDPriestly Dec 2014 #17
But the wealth is safely in the hands of the wealthy elite and multinational corporations where Enthusiast Dec 2014 #20
Indeed I believe FDR knew that the elite have prospered under high tariffs and low. The key pampango Dec 2014 #22
You are entitled to your opinion. I'll side with FDR. pampango Dec 2014 #21
The TPP creates international Corporate Supremacy®. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #23
I've posted many times that the TPP is only good if it has strong labor and environmental standards pampango Dec 2014 #24
Yeah, we heard about those mythical strong labor and environmental standards Enthusiast Dec 2014 #25
We are both skeptical about their inclusion in the TPP. pampango Dec 2014 #27
We do not want another trade deal. Period. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #28
That was pretty quick going from "completely abandon any and all trade deals with nations that do pampango Dec 2014 #29
Problem is the GDP does not reflect median income. JDPriestly Dec 2014 #30
Wages declined from the early 1970's to the mid-1990's then increased. A NAFTA tragedy? pampango Dec 2014 #31
Fantastic quote! Thanks! MannyGoldstein Dec 2014 #26

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
1. Did it work? Did it work? Anyone?...
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 04:00 AM
Dec 2014

It did not work, and the United States sunk deeper into the Great Depression

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
4. Thanks for that astute assessment, Rush.
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 07:08 AM
Dec 2014

How very RW of you.

------------------------------

Scholars' Debates

Scholars tend to view the Depression and New Deal differently depending on their own ideological perspective.

Conservative historians place a high value on the ideal of laissez-faire. Thus, the Depression was simply a painful but necessary market correction which would have corrected itself if left alone. To conservatives, small government means maximum freedom; and, the New Deal means the beginnings of an irresponsible and/or over-regulatory welfare state.

For liberal historians the Depression represents the failure of laissez-faire, but not capitalism itself. Liberals value capitalism and democracy, asserting that democratic governments must be responsive to the social needs of the people. For many liberals the New Deal represents another American Revolution leading to the empowerment of previously powerless and oppressed groups and laying the foundation for a humane welfare state.

To leftists the Depression represents the failure of market capitalism to protect the interests of the majority. The New Deal was simply laissez-faire capitalism's replacement with corporate statism (a more systematic partnership between corporations and the government). Rather than empowering the masses, for leftist scholars the New Deal represents capitalism's resilience and continued power.

http://iws.collin.edu/kwilkison/Online1302home/20th%20Century/DepressionNewDeal.html

 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
10. Let's see... in FDR's first term...
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 08:21 AM
Dec 2014

unemployment halved and GDP grew at about 8% per year.

And voters virtually banished Republicans from Congress in the mid-term elections.

So, yeah, it worked well, although by Third-Way standards it was a total disaster: wages went up, bankers got seriously regulated, and Republicans were miffed.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
2. FDR was right on. Tariffs should protect the living standards of the American worker.
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 06:11 AM
Dec 2014

Tariffs should be employed to protect environmental and worker health and safety standards, minimal standards. Tariffs need not be overwhelming. They only need to be high enough to offset the advantage of cheap foreign labor and unenforced environmental standards.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
16. "In FDR's view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 02:41 PM
Dec 2014

and secondly, because he believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite."

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-freer-trade

Of course, FDR was right about the burden of financing the government and the concentration of wealth that high tariffs had played a role in creating by the end of the 1920's.

I know that you were not posting in support of "high" tariffs, rather for "not overwhelming" ones, but I thought I should post the quote as it was written.


Tariffs should be employed to protect environmental and worker health and safety standards, minimal standards.

I agree. We should negotiate international agreements that motivate countries to adopt and enforce high standards on labor rights, climate change, worker health and safety standards, etc. The enticement would be lower tariffs for countries joining the agreement and following standards. Higher tariffs would then apply to countries that did not join.
 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
3. Very little of the TPP has anything to do with what tariffs are still existing.
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 06:47 AM
Dec 2014

Most of the TPP is about giving corporations the ability to stifle competition and to sue in private courts over regulations they feel hamper their profits. Which is all regulations, of course.

Anyone who continues to describe or excuse the TTP (or TTIP or any other trade agreement) as merely about tariffs (I think only 5 of the sections of the TTP are actually about tariffs) is a willing or unwitting tool of the 1%. I am sure I will read something about "lifting up the very poor in Asia" here at DU if/when Fast Track is granted. No, the TPP is about pushing all of us down to that level, and doing away with protections and regulations.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/on-the-wrong-side-of-globalization/?_r=3

.......

Today, the purpose of trade agreements is different. Tariffs around the world are already low. The focus has shifted to “nontariff barriers,” and the most important of these — for the corporate interests pushing agreements — are regulations. Huge multinational corporations complain that inconsistent regulations make business costly. But most of the regulations, even if they are imperfect, are there for a reason: to protect workers, consumers, the economy and the environment.

What’s more, those regulations were often put in place by governments responding to the democratic demands of their citizens. Trade agreements’ new boosters euphemistically claim that they are simply after regulatory harmonization, a clean-sounding phrase that implies an innocent plan to promote efficiency. One could, of course, get regulatory harmonization by strengthening regulations to the highest standards everywhere. But when corporations call for harmonization, what they really mean is a race to the bottom.

......

The secrecy might be enough to cause significant controversy for the TPP. What we know of its particulars only makes it more unpalatable. One of the worst is that it allows corporations to seek restitution in an international tribunal, not only for unjust expropriation, but also for alleged diminution of their potential profits as a result of regulation. This is not a theoretical problem. Philip Morris has already tried this tactic against Uruguay, claiming that its antismoking regulations, which have won accolades from the World Health Organization, unfairly hurt profits, violating a bilateral trade treaty between Switzerland and Uruguay. In this sense, recent trade agreements are reminiscent of the Opium Wars, in which Western powers successfully demanded that China keep itself open to opium because they saw it as vital in correcting what otherwise would be a large trade imbalance.

.....There are other noxious provisions. America has been fighting to lower the cost of health care. But the TPP would make the introduction of generic drugs more difficult, and thus raise the price of medicines. In the poorest countries, this is not just about moving money into corporate coffers: thousands would die unnecessarily. Of course, those who do research have to be compensated. That’s why we have a patent system. But the patent system is supposed to carefully balance the benefits of intellectual protection with another worthy goal: making access to knowledge more available. I’ve written before about how the system has been abused by those seeking patents for the genes that predispose women to breast cancer. The Supreme Court ended up rejecting those patents, but not before many women suffered unnecessarily. Trade agreements provide even more opportunities for patent abuse.

The worries mount. One way of reading the leaked negotiation documents suggests that the TPP would make it easier for American banks to sell risky derivatives around the world, perhaps setting us up for the same kind of crisis that led to the Great Recession.

......


As I said, anyone who blandly says the TPP et al. are just about tariffs is a willing or unwitting tool of the 1%. IMO and all that.



JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
13. I certainly hope you did not think that with my post I was suggesting that the TPP is just about
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 01:12 PM
Dec 2014

tariffs. i am very familiar with the NAFTA court processes for example. These international, commercial courts deprive nations of significant self-determination capacity. I totally oppose the TPP. The trade agreements we now have are anathema to democracy. We do not need more.

Thanks for your post.

 

Doctor_J

(36,392 posts)
11. as djean notes up above, TPP is much worse than just tariffs
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 10:02 AM
Dec 2014

When it passes the transnationals will be exempt from laws. Of course FDR was correct, which pisses off the BOG and the turd way, but I'm sure he couldn't even imagine anything like TPP

Mosby

(16,311 posts)
14. Dr. Dean talked about the need for tariffs when he was running for president
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 01:22 PM
Dec 2014

He showed a lot of courage with that Imo.

The fact is that tariffs on Chinese and other third world countries goods makes sense, it helps protect american made products, provides revenue to the government for things like infrastructure and health care costs and would not raise prices at all, the producers would absorb the costs because their margins are already fat.

It sure would be great if dems would start taking about this again.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
15. Of course, he campaigned against and negotiated away most of the high tariffs he inherited
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 02:02 PM
Dec 2014

from Hoover and Coolidge.

I think your quote is a fair assessment of his thoughts on tariffs in 1933. After campaigning against high tariffs in 1932 he introduced the RTAA in 1934 which he used to lower tariffs. The quote may have been an expression of his opinion of how limited they should be - compared to the high tariff levels republicans had enacted - since, in the next, year he started to lower them.

And one could argue that his view of tariffs and trade in general evolved over the course of time. As WWII progressed and he envisioned the post-war world, he seemed committed to multilateral organizations that would play a large role in international affairs. The United Nations was the first, proposed in 1942. Then in 1944 his Bretton Woods conference came up with the IMF, the World Bank and the International Trade Organization ("an international institution for the regulation of trade").

I think his later commitment to multilateral governance of international issues was partly a fear that conservatives would regain power in the US and elsewhere and bring about a return to the same high tariffs and isolationism that Coolidge and Hoover had promoted.

From the Roosevelt Institute: The Next New Deal

The driving force behind this effort was FDR's Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who considered the passage of Smoot-Hawley an unmitigated disaster. Hull had been arguing in favor of freer trade for decades, both as a Democratic congressman and later senator from Tennessee. Given the long-standing protectionist tendencies of Congress -- which reached their zenith with the passage of Smoot-Hawley, the highest tariff in U.S. history -- Hull faced an uphill struggle to accomplish this task. He also had to overcome FDR's initial reluctance to embrace his ideas, as the president preferred the policies of the "economic nationalists" within his administration during his first year in office. By 1934, however, FDR's attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hull's proposed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act -- a landmark piece of legislation that fundamentally altered the way in which the United States carried out foreign economic policy.

Convinced that the country was not ready for a truly multilateral approach to freer trade, Hull's legislation sought to establish a system of bilateral agreements through which the United States would seek reciprocal reductions in the duties imposed on specific commodities with other interested governments. These reductions would then be generalized by the application of the most-favored-nation principle, with the result that the reduction accorded to a commodity from one country would then be accorded to the same commodity when imported from other countries. Well aware of the lingering resistance to tariff reduction that remained in Congress, Hull insisted that the power to make these agreements must rest with the president alone, without the necessity of submitting them to the Senate for approval. Under the act, the president would be granted the power to decrease or increase existing rates by as much as 50 percent in return for reciprocal trade concessions granted by the other country.

It is also important to note that Hull, like many of his contemporaries, including FDR, regarded protectionism as antithetical to the average worker -- first, because in FDR's view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor, and secondly, because he believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite, who, as a consequence, wielded an undue or even corrupting influence in Washington. As such, both FDR and Hull saw the opening up of the world's economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Indeed, by the time the U.S. entered the war, this conviction had intensified to the point where the two men concluded that the root cause of the war was economic depravity.

The U.S. would also champion the 1944 Bretton Woods Accords, which set up the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and after the war, the RTAA would go on to serve as the model for the negotiation of the 1947 General Agreement on Tariff and Trade (GATT), the critical institution upon which the modern global economy stands and the precursor to the World Trade Organization (WTO) established in 1995. Hence, it was U.S. reciprocal trade policy -- a policy that had changed little since its inception during the New Deal -- combined with a newfound determination to play a leading role in world affairs, that guided U.S. policymakers in the mid-1940s towards a new post-war international economic order -- an economic order still largely in operation to this day.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-freer-trade

This is the first time I read that the RTAA actually gave FDR the power to unilaterally raise or lower tariffs up to 50% without congressional approval.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
17. Unfortunately, as our high trade deficit and declining wages prove, even multilateral trade
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 06:13 PM
Dec 2014

agreements can shift the tax burden from the rich (who are now hiding their money from the taxman in tax havens and by incorporating in foreign countries) to the poor and middle class.

The multinational approach to trade has failed. We should just admit it and go back to bilateral trade agreements.

In particular, the trade courts are very dangerous to our way of life. They have and can delay or prevent a country from implementing environmentally vital programs.

They have and can encourage cheating not just with regard to taxes but with regard to product quality, safety standards and costs to consumers.

Free Trade was a wonderful idea, a marketable slogan. But it has harmed American workers, American consumers, the finances of our government and our society as a whole.

We need to renegotiate our trade agreements.

The assumption on which the free trade agreements are based is that the nations with which we enter into the agreements will be as honest, idealistic, fair, democratic, concerned about and responsive to their citizens, the environment, their customers, etc. as most people in our country are.

That assumption has proved to be terribly false.

We need to negotiate our trade agreements to protect the high standard of living in the United States.

It is crumbling. We need to act fast to save it.

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
20. But the wealth is safely in the hands of the wealthy elite and multinational corporations where
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 06:25 PM
Dec 2014

they can look can look out for it and do what is best for all of us. You know.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
22. Indeed I believe FDR knew that the elite have prospered under high tariffs and low. The key
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 07:44 PM
Dec 2014

to controlling the concentration of wealth and power in the elite has nothing to do with trade (which FDR promoted) and everything to do with tax policy, support for strong unions, an adequate safety net and corporate regulation.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
21. You are entitled to your opinion. I'll side with FDR.
Mon Dec 8, 2014, 07:40 PM
Dec 2014

By the time of his death he was committed to lower tariffs, more trade and multilateral governance of a variety of international issues including trade. He understood that the health of American workers was insured by a strong safety net, legislation to protect unions, a progressive tax system and effective corporate regulation not by restricting trade. In a real sense progressive countries like Germany and Sweden govern today like FDR did in his day.

We need to negotiate our trade agreements to protect the high standard of living in the United States.

Got to protect our "high standard of living" from all those poor 'others' out there?



FDR was right.

... both FDR and Hull saw the opening up of the world's economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity.

http://www.nextnewdeal.net/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-freer-trade

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
23. The TPP creates international Corporate Supremacy®.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 09:12 AM
Dec 2014

See, we do not want Corporate Supremacy®.

We already have quite enough Corporate Supremacy®.

It is way past time to put a stop to this expansion of Corporate Supremacy®.


Corporate Supremacy® is the very definition of Fascism.

We. Do. Not. Want. It.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
24. I've posted many times that the TPP is only good if it has strong labor and environmental standards
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 09:36 AM
Dec 2014

in it.

We've seen no proof of their inclusion. And even if they are in there, without 'fast track', which Obama will never get from a republican congress, republicans will just strip out them out and pass their own version.

So I agree with you with respect to the TPP. If it meets much higher standards on labor and the environment, as China and some republicans fear, then republicans will kill it or delete the standards. If it does not meet those standards, it does not deserve to be approved.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5930509

Enthusiast

(50,983 posts)
25. Yeah, we heard about those mythical strong labor and environmental standards
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 09:52 AM
Dec 2014

leading up to NAFTA. Funny, they never materialized. If they did become law there was no enforcement mechanism. Fox—hen house.

The best path is to completely abandon any and all trade deals with nations that do not have a similar or greater living standards.

No trade deal should be written by corporations in secret.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
27. We are both skeptical about their inclusion in the TPP.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:46 AM
Dec 2014

I refuse to believe that it is impossible to have strong, enforceable labor and environmental standards in international agreements even though the enforceable qualifier means there would have to be an independent enforcement body that will anger the 'national sovereignty' folks. The administration says they are in this agreement. I doubt that but I have not seen the final draft.

The best path is to completely abandon any and all trade deals with nations that do not have a similar or greater living standards.

So trade deals with Europe, Canada and Australia would be OK but deals with Central/South America and Africa would not be acceptable?

Here are the countries we have trade deals with now and their per capita GDP:

Per Capita GDP:
US - $53,000
Canada - $43,000
Oman - $43,000
Bahrain - $49,000
Australia - $45,000
Israel - $33,000
South Korea - $34,000
Singapore - $78,000
All the Latin American countries are below $20,000.

(BTW, the EU is $35,000 and Japan is $36,000.)

Where would you draw the line on "nations that do not have a similar or greater living standards"? Should we abrogate all of trade deals with every country below $50,000 per capita GDP? That would eliminate every country except Singapore? Perhaps at $40,000 to eliminate South Korea and Israel and any potential for deals with the EU and Japan? Or should we put the limit at $30,000 and just eliminate Latin American countries?

pampango

(24,692 posts)
29. That was pretty quick going from "completely abandon any and all trade deals with nations that do
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 11:15 AM
Dec 2014

not have a similar or greater living standards" to "We do not want another trade deal. Period." Regardless of living standards, I assume.

And this is premised on the belief that there is no such thing as a good international agreement or trade deal? Does this mean we abandon all international climate change international negotiations because they cannot, by definition, be good? After all, past ones have not worked.

Trade is a miniscule part of our economy compared to what it is in really progressive countries. Imports are 13% of our economy; 34% of Germany's economy. Guess which country has higher wages and stronger unions, middle class and safety net. If trade deals are so bad how is that even possible?

The TPP is an opportunity to inject labor/human rights and environmental standards into trade rules. While those standards are in the guidelines that Obama set for the negotiations, I am skeptical that there will be enforceable standards in the final draft. If they are not in there, the TPP is, as Krugman states, "no big deal" and should be shot down.

Again, I don't see Obama getting fast track authority from a republican congress because that would keep the republican majority from being able to delete any liberal provisions in the TPP and add in any conservative ones they want. And there are a lot of Democrats in congress that don't want him to have fast track authority either.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
30. Problem is the GDP does not reflect median income.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 05:27 PM
Dec 2014

The bigger and more trade deals, the lower the median income compared to GDP in the US. That is how it has worked so far.

U.S. real (inflation adjusted) median household income was $51,939 in 2013 versus $51,759 in 2012, essentially unchanged. However, it has trended down since 2007, falling 8% from the pre-recession peak of $56,436.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

We are comparing GDP which measures dollars per individual human being (per capita) of $53,000 per person with per household income of $51,939.

Having lived in Europe, I can say that comparing GDPs is like comparing grapefruits to tangerines. In some countries, small children and babies are commonly cared for by their grandparents or other relatives, for example. There is no monetary transaction to contribute to the GDP of that nation. Same with work on farms. If family farms are the rule, the work of many of the family members does not contribute to the calculation of the GDP. GDP is not just products sold and their value but also services sold and their values. In many countries, services are provided for free and do not count toward the GDP although those same services would be bought and sold and contribute to the high GDP in our country.

Thus, GDP can be a very misleading number and what is more, our GDP compared to the household income in the US reflects the terrible disparity in wealth in our country, a disparity that grows with each trade agreement and our trade deficit. Why is the trade deficit related to our declining wages, living standard and household income? Because the trade deficit represents jobs and wages lost to other countries.

The US trade deficit is much too large.

The reason is that the oligarchs who profit from "free" trade, that is from being able to import products into the US without exporting an equal value in products from the US, take their profits outside the US mostly in small countries in which tax rates are, thanks to their small populations and therefore relatively small infrastructures, governments, etc. and do not pay taxes commensurate with their role in the US economy. They do not pay for the roads that transport the foreign-made goods to markets. They do not pay for the social structure, the schools, hospitals, the lifestyle, etc. that make the US a good place to sell their products.

The rest of us buy the cheapest item offered unable to control where it comes from because almost nothing we need to buy is made in the US.

The GDP of the US does not reflect the loss in living standard that Americans have experienced and are experiencing at an accelerating rate due to free trade that profits the wealthy and leaves other Americans behind.


WASHINGTON - The U.S. trade deficit fell slightly in October as exports rebounded while oil imports dipped to the lowest level in five years.

The deficit edged down 0.4 per cent to $43.4 billion, a drop from a revised $43.6 billion in September, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-trade-deficit-drops-43-4-billion-october-133714108.html

While China, Russia and Germany have trade surpluses -- pretty large ones, we have the largest trade deficit in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

The last thing we need is yet another trade deficit.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
31. Wages declined from the early 1970's to the mid-1990's then increased. A NAFTA tragedy?
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 09:35 AM
Dec 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#mediaviewer/File:U.S._Hourly_Wages_-_Real_or_Adjusted_for_Inflation_1964-2014.png

It is fine with me to use another, more realistic measure of living standards. I used per capita GDP to respond to the post:

The best path is to completely abandon any and all trade deals with nations that do not have a similar or greater living standards.

Any other accurate measure of living standards is fine with me. My point was to ask what happens if we were to restrict trade agreements to countries that have "similar or greater living standards.

The last thing we need is yet another trade deficit.

As many have pointed out the TPP has little to do with tariffs. I have not seen many conclude that it will cause larger trade deficits.

Our imports are a small part of our economy - 13% - as is total trade - 22%. Imports are a large part of Germany's economy - 34% - while trade is 76%. To blame economic problems on imports or trade ignores what really makes for good wages, strong unions and a healthy middle class.
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
26. Fantastic quote! Thanks!
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 09:54 AM
Dec 2014

For many years I've said if we have strong unions and adequate tarriffs, we'll have most of what's needed for a strong 99%.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thinking about the TPP. ...