OK, now Obama is just being unnecessarily cruel

[MadHound]

Yesterday morning we woke up to Congress passing a free trade agreement that will ship at least 159,000 US jobs to S. Korea.

Last night, Obama and the S. Korean president had a formal state dinner, and one can assume that more than one toast was raised to the latest job stripping free trade agreement.

That's bad enough, having a dinner celebrating the loss of US jobs. But now, Obama is taking it one step further, taking the S. Korean President on a tour of Detroit, the city that is the poster child for being ravaged by past free trade agreements.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/08/us-usa-korea-idUSTRE79702C20111008>

Sorry, but this is simply rubbing salt into the wounds, running up the score. In two days we've watched in horror as, during an unemployment crisis, our government ships even more jobs overseas. This followed by a glitzy dinner that features the primary beneficiary of this free trade deal as the guest of honor. And now, our president is sponsoring this same man on a tour of Detroit.

That's just wrong, cruel and wrong.

And people wonder why we're seeing the rise of OWS. Arrogant shit like this.

[Luciferous]

1. Absolutely shameful nt.

[notadmblnd]

2. I'm sure they won't venture into the hoods

where the real devastation can be seen. Many neighborhoods in Detroit look like they have been bombed out of existance.

[madrchsod]

3. according to a Korean lady my daughter works with.....

her family in Korea is telling her that Korean jobs are being sent to china. she said a lot of Koreans are pissed off,too.

[MissDeeds]

4. Spot on

It is arrogant and cruel.

[slay]

5. Ugh

ever vote for a Dem just to find out he's actually a moderately conservative republican? yeah i think we all did. :(

[TheKentuckian]

6. Republican regular as opposed to theocratic, far right loon TeaPubliKlan

[joshcryer]

13. Naw, junior senator arguing for post-partisanship, exactly what you get.

At least, I predicted it'd turn out that way.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. That's our President Dinner Jacket.

It is what he does best.

[dionysus]

19. so clever.

[blindpig]

8. Yes, insult to injury.

Capitalism rules.

[piratefish08]

9. why do you LOVE PRESIDENT CAIN???!!!??

WHY WHY WHY!!!!!!



VOTE DEM YEA!!



USA USA USA USA

[Admiral Loinpresser]

11. Good one! n/t

[nc4bo]

10. Guess that will be the next country to zoom in and buy depressed real estate at fire sale prices....

Hyperbole I know......

Yes - it pisses me off to know end.

[pampango]

12. "Free trade" is horrible. Look what it has done to Europe and Canada. n/t

[eilen]

14. Is he planning to trade them Detroit? nt

[Axrendale]

15. I really don't understand the hullabaloo that so many on the left keep raising about free trade

The article that is cited which purports to "prove" that the ROK agreement is going somehow cost 159,000 jobs is ludicrous - it presents an argument based on fradulous evidence derived from dodgy analyses from the past that most serious economists wouldn't touch.

The truth is that these deals represent neither the betrayal that liberal critics of the administration have decried them as, nor the major success trumpeted by the administration. They are on the contrary about as miniscule as it is possible to get in small potatoes.

My experience tends to be that the people who screech about these kinds of developments tend to know very little about international trade, basic socio-economics, or both. Provided that trade laws are scrupulously enforced (which has admittedly been a problem at times) considered agreements such as these are on the whole quite a positive thing - though almost never having a particularly big impact. Exports and imports of the relevant products might rise or fall, some new jobs are created, some old ones are lost - and no concerned party comes out noticeably on top of the other as long as everybody agrees to play by the rules.

Even the infamous NAFTA - the ultimate bugaboo amongst the anti-free trade crowd - although a flawed agreement was in terms of its actual impact for the US, had a surprisingly underwhelming effect. On the whole it seems to have been partly responsible for a small net-loss in jobs (it did manage to create some as well) but the reality which many around here choose to ignore is that most of job losses which are credited to it actually resulted primarily from other factors (technological development was a big culprit), leaving the scary-looking numbers and representations from the bogus charts and arguments as little more than an embarrasingly durable example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Joseph Stiglitz, probably the foremost keynesian economist alive today, has published some excellent works about this stuff that a lot of the people who reflexively screech about this stuff might find highly informative.

My suspicion is that a large part of the hysteria tends to be prompted by the heavy opposition of organized labor to free trade both in theory and in practice. As far as I'm concerned this simply showcases why the American left would do well to avoid devolving into little more than a political arm of the union movement. As positive as the contributions of organized labor to American society might be, its positions are hardly infallible - if they were, then large parts of the New Deal would never have come into being.

[Occulus]

16. Well, THAT'S bullshit, first to last.

Every last word of that is objectively wrong, including "and" and "the".

Shame on you. We are smarter than that.

[Axrendale]

32. *yawn*

That's pretty much the sort of mindlessly reflexive response I expected to get from someone.

The truth is that there is little in my previous post that couldn't have been cribbed straight from what many of the leading liberal intellectuals of our time have to say the on the subject of trade. Incidently, there has not been a single Democratic president since Grover Cleveland who didn't support the principles of free trade - and that includes FDR, Harry Truman, and JFK, who were probably the three most labor-friendly presidents in American history.

Whether or not it is true that "we are smarter than that", I think it would be very helpful if "we" become a little more mature in the way that "we" think about the issues than is presently the case.

[scentopine]

45. He's defending NAFTA like Wall Street defends CDOs - it's all design to steal opportunity and money

from the non-rich. Neo-libs only think in terms of derivative effects and implied benefits. That's because they can't show a direct benefit of outsourcing. They'll say, "pffft no big deal, America only loses 300,000 jobs, we have 300,000,000 million people.

That's just bullshit of course, beyond the devastation to tax base and quality of life, it's also the 2,000,000 new jobs that aren't being created in the USA. It's all the profit from the exploitation of unregulated markets in Asia going into CEO pockets. Every last fucking dime.

And because of the tax advantages, they pay even less taxes than they would hiring USA workers. US companies are investing more money traing low wage, low skill workers in Asia than the combined budgets of state school systems. And they get tax write-offs for it.

These Washington fuckers need to start working for us directly, and stop with the complex derivative bullshit magic trickle down accounting. Christ almighty this White House is every bit as shitty and evil as the last one.

[Fumesucker]

17. I'm guessing you're still employed..

Lucky you.

Get back with us after you lose *your* job, I suspect your tune will be a bit different then.

[Axrendale]

33. If and when I do become unemployed in the future

I shall indeed get back to you, if only to reflect on the nature of the real factors behind my hypothetical job-loss in a manner that at least bares a resemblance to intellectual honesty.

[Fumesucker]

37. Naah, you'll be too busy scraping for another job, *any* job to bother with us..

[Dreamer Tatum]

18. Stopped reading at "fraudulous" nt

[Romulox]

31. Come now, that's a perfectly cromulent word!

Nice catch.

[Axrendale]

34. What can I say?

It's the Shakespeare in me. ;)

[Dreamer Tatum]

49. It's the illiterate in you, actually. nt

[pampango]

20. Well said. Trade is a small part of our economy - much smaller than in Canada, Germany, Sweden

or any other progressive country. And free trade is a fraction of that small percentage.

Although progressive countries trade (and "free trade") more than we do, it is convenient to blame our economic problems on trade. Foreigners (particularly poor ones) are a lot easier to blame. "We can't compete with poor people."

Most seem to agree that foreigners have no rights so bashing them involves no accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. They are about the only remaining category of "THEM" (at least a category based on birth characteristics, as opposed to being a republican which is a matter of choice) that seems acceptable to the left and the right.

France and Germany can trade freely with each other despite a history of invasions and mistrust. Other European countries do the same. And they have "free trade" with a host of Third World countries, including Mexico, and unilateral tariff-free imports from the really poor countries in the world. And yet Europe has a progressive and prosperous society with strong unions, effective health care, strong safety nets and a very equitable distribution of income.

[Axrendale]

35. Spot on! Nailed it on the head.

I take my hat off to you sir.

[MadHound]

22. Well, first of all, you make a lot of assumptions about those who criticize free trade,

Second of all, your knowledge about what free trade, and especially NAFTA, has done to this country is, well, to be polite, lacking.

First of all, a lot of those who do criticize free trade are indeed quite knowledgeable, myself included. No, I don't have a degree in economics, but my wife is an economist and in addition I've spoken with several economists on a wide variety of issues, including free trade. In their expert opinion, free trade has been a detriment to this country. It has cost this country jobs, gutted the manufacturing sector, and in general contributed to lower wages in this country.

As far as NAFTA goes, you dismissal of its effects as "underwhelming" simply shows how little you know. First of all, NAFTA was the first of the free trade deals that seriously took jobs away from this country. Perot may have been full of corn, but he was correct about "that giant sucking sound." Secondly, NAFTA rendered a large stretch of the Mexican border, on the Mexican side, into a toxic waste site.

Even folks like Stiglitz aren't pleased with NAFTA
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-broken-promise-of-nafta.html?src=pm>

Nor is Paul Krugman
<http://pkarchive.org/trade/nafta.html>

Even Clinton's man, Robert Reich, isn't happy with how NAFTA turned out
<http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2008/03/robert-reich-on-nafta-and-trade.html>

But I suppose you'll dismiss these folks as not knowing what their talking about.

[Axrendale]

38. *snort*

The article that you cited as "evidence" in your original post was ridiculous enough - attempting to support a flawed premise by citing past instances of thoughtless scape-goating. This time, what you wrote all but demands that I enquire of you: did you even bother to read the pieces that you provided links to before you posted them? I assume not, because if you had actually bothered to do so then you would realise that those three pieces essentially confirm most of what I just wrote. Kindly peruse them again, and note that while they all point out that NAFTA was in and of itself a flawed agreement (which is also what I wrote) it represents a flaw in the execution of the principles of free trade rather than a solid case against free trade as a hole. None of the three finds reason to disagree with Robert Reich's assertion that "the overall benefits from free trade far exceed the costs, and the winners from trade (including all of us consumers who get cheaper goods and services because of it) far exceed the losers", or Paul Krugman's flat statement that "NAFTA's effects have been basically nil outside of political realms" - it's main impact having been in the conduct of foreign policy, with Joseph Stiglitz chiming in that "the North American Free Trade Agreement has failed to fulfill the most dire warnings of its opponents and the most fervent expectations of its supporters". Reich's article links to an additional excellent piece by Lane Kenworthy.

All four - Stiglitz, Krugman, Reich, and Kenworthy - are in basic agreement that free trade agreements, whether flawed (eg. NAFTA) or well executed (hopefully the ROK agreement that has touched off this thread will be an example) can only really have an effect of fairly limited scope over the exports and imports of specific products, and thus at the end of the day are inevitably small potatoes. When times are good ideologues of one persuasion might falsely credit trade policies with the successes that are actually being driven by other factors; when times are bad ideologues of another persuasion might try and turn them into a scapegoat - both with a more or less equal lack of hard evidence-based justification. As Stiglitz in particular argues persuasively, larger social and economic conditions driven by factors ranging from degrees of industrial and technological development to the fiscal and monetary (to say nothing of social) policies of the national government, are the true issues of concern. pampango summarizes a part of this view quite eloquently in his comments above.

I won't comment on your wife (that would be impolite) but your reliance upon the "expert opinion" of certain economists of your acquaintence fails to impress me, to say the least. In this day and age it is possible to find "expert opinion" to lend its "credibility" to just about every argument or position under the sun - including many that seem to have little basis at all in fact. The best bet in my experience tends to be to run with that which can be supported by the best possible mix of reason, evidence, and validation by the historical record. Tried by these standards, there remains no reason as far as I am concerned that free trade agreements as a part of this nation's policy have fairly consistently been a boon (of admittedly fairly minor note) for its economic activity in the past, and there is no reason to doubt that this will continue to be the case in both the present and the future, up to and including the three trade agreements that have recently passed through Congress.

If you feel like doing some reading beyond short articles, so that in the future you con argue on this topic from a more informed perspective, I could recommend some good books for you. "Globalization and its Discontents", "Making Globalization Work", and "The Roaring Nineties" by Joseph Stiglitz are all excellent reads, as are "Peddling Prosperity" by Paul Krugman and "The Work of Nations" and "Supercapitalism" by Robert Reich ("Locked in the Cabinet" is also a good read about the making of economic policy during the '90s).

[scentopine]

42. Nothing worse than flowery language to cover something that smells like shit

I have 35 years in telecom engineering business. I have always been in the center of manufacturing and R&D. I am watching technology developed by US employees being sold to Asia for pennies on the dollar. Our wages are being cut, we are working 12 hours a day. We are losing benefits. Morale is bad, innovation is nearly at a dead stop.

Innovation and Industry is dying in the USA. Good minds are watching the greed and ruthlessness of Wall Street and deciding to leave engineering, medicine and science for a chance to get in with Wall Street.

My hands on experience brings me more perspective than your prickish wet dream of another bad deal that shafts the working class in this country. I have watched entire communities destroyed. I have had pay higher and higher property taxes go up for computers in kindergarten just so college grads lose their jobs to 26 year olds in Bangalore using a computer for the first time..

The existing job loses are bad enough, the new jobs that aren't even being offered in US are even worse. Old and new jobs are going to Chinese and Indian contract shops, paying dollars a day, workers living in filthy factory dorm rooms. Every penny saved is going into the pockets of executive staff. R&D is nearly zero, companies are churning the same shit over and over, squeezing every last dime, and aver last drop of blood out of employees.

You think this is funny, don't you. Those of us with proven skills building, innovating and manufacturing, are just a laughing stock - look at us, working 12 hours a day, kids working tell 1AM every night with home work, health care pushing $20k a year for family, college inflation pushing past $100k for four years.

We are fucking sick of the flowery snarks and put downs. One thing you have clearly demonstrated, the job market for pompous asses who post from inside the virtual beltway is obviously booming. Enjoy your bonus.

You perfectly capture the arrogance and betrayal of the democratic party. A party completely out of phase, offering solutions that only serve to amplify the instability.

You speak of the reality and support your vision with textbook fantasies. Here's the reality - things getting worse and worse with each shitty neo-lib/neo-con idea that pops out of the asses in the White House.

Tea Party says - "drill baby drill"

Flowery Tongue says "In order to leverage the reality of our vast reserves of natural energy, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, it is perfectly sensible to drill all along the Eastern Seaboard. And, I have been assured, it's perfectly safe."

Soon after that, BP bought the Gulf of Mexico for $6B. Like selling Manhattan for beads and blankets.

I know I am speaking for many when I say - you make us all sick.

[Mimosa]

43. Scentopine, you are speaking the truth.

Thanks. Keep telling it like it is. I know many ITs who've been overworked, paid peanuts, no job or contract security before being DUMPED when businesses got cheaper laborers from China, Singapore or India.

Remember how we were told during the late 80s and through the 90s to train for the jobs of the future? They DID. Now MANY of those jobs have been outsource!

[scentopine]

46. Yes - I see it every fucking day - it is disaster. It is a shitty deal for everyone -nt

[Axrendale]

44. Couple of small typos

Last sentence of the third paragraph should read:

*Tried by these standards, there remains no reason as far as I am concerned to doubt that free trade agreements as a part of this nation's policy have fairly consistently been a boon (of admittedly fairly minor note) for its economic activity in the past, and there is no reason to doubt that this will continue to be the case in both the present and the future, up to and including the three trade agreements that have recently passed through Congress.*

and the first sentence of the last paragraph should contain the word "can" instead of "con"

[leftstreet]

26. Hey, it's not just us. Workers in Seoul are protesting it too. OOPS

Getty Images 1 day ago

A South Korea man holds a banner and candle during a rally against a free trade agreement (FTA) between South Korea and the US in Seoul on October 13, 2011. South Korea's opposition party said on October 13 it would strongly resist any bid to ram a sweeping free trade agreement with the United States through parliament, as the US Congress ratified the deal.

[Axrendale]

39. Hey,

nobody ever said that ignorance of the realities of free trade and globalization was a phenomenon confined to the United States.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. Are there any studies about jobs lost indirectly to free trade?

I'll agree with you that the number of jobs actually shipped overseas is relatively small considering there's 300 million people in this country. But, the problem with it is that it wreaks absolute havoc on communities whose way of life revolves around one or a couple of manufacturing plants. Once the plant goes, the town goes.

At the end of the day, free trade doesn't adversely impact most of the country. But it does pick winners and losers and the suffering it creates for the losers is awful. Making the few suffer so the rest of us can benefit isn't necessarily a moral code I want to live by.

[Axrendale]

50. While I agree with the basic (moral) principles behind your statement,

I am afraid that in my view it represents an ideal that is well beyond the reach of practical consideration. To attempt to hold back the tides of reality of an increasingly globalized and technologically developed world is at the end of the day an exercise in futility, and trying to wish it away by simply refusing to participate in the global economy would achieve results somewhat similar to King Canute's legendary attempt to command the oceans - the only net gain is one of embarrasment.

Accepting that globalization is always going to guarentee some losers in the modern economic process, the best and most practical response is an activist response by the government to try and mitigate the rough edges and maximise the perks through a sustained campaign of social and economic investment policies of the kind that were at their peak in this country during the 1930s and '40s under the Roosevelt administration and the New Deal, further abetted by a much stronger commitment to the kind of anti-poverty programs that were supported by the government during the Kennedy/Johnson years in the 1960s.

A misconception persists amongst much of the left that this kind of classic liberalism, which was responsible for creating the American middle class as we know (or knew) it today - and thereby transforming the United States into an economic superpower of unprecedented proportions - is somehow incompatible with the principles of free trade that have come so heavily under fire in recent years with the rise of the globalization phenomenon. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy - easily the two most successful economic presidencies of the 20th century - were committed internationalists as well as domestic visionaries in their economic thinking, and both their presidencies encompassed important breakthroughs in the realm of trade policy, which actually complemented rather than detracted from the enormous progress that was made during their tenures. Even the acknowledged slip-ups that grew out of the embrace of the globalization phenomenon during the Clinton years (and the outright screw-ups of the Bush years) were simply demonstrations of bad mismanagment of trade policy by misguided officials rather than a basis for any sort of coherent argument against free trade as a buttress for modern liberal government (in the American sense).

Once again, I heartily recommend the works that have been published on this subject in particular by Joseph Stiglitz and Robert Reich, the latter of whom presents a particularly eloquent case for liberal social and economic policies as the ideal answer to the "discontents" of globalization. Acceptance of free trade as a positive phenomenon amomgst keynesian economists goes all the way back to John Maynard Keynes himself.

[former9thward]

41. The U.S. Department of Labor says 525,000 workers lost their jobs to NAFTA.

Those were certified by the DOL during the 9 years they were allowed to count them. That program was stopped in 2003. So I guess the DOL is part of the "on the left" crowd putting out "scary-looking numbers" and "bogus charts". http://www.nwlaborpress.org/2003/12-19-03NAFTA.html

[WCGreen]

47. I think people are confusing free trade with fair trade....

There is never a fair balance between those who have laws that are enforced and those who have an outlaw form of capitalism.

[OhioChick]

21. Utterly Shameful n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Considering that the United Auto Workers supported the Korea pact, Detroit is a logical place to go

[MadHound]

24. Considering that Michigan is one of the top steel states,

And the United Steelworkers hate this deal, it is just rubbing salt into the wound.

[Better Believe It]

30. A few top union officials support the trade deal. The dues paying membership never voted for it!

And the rest of the organized labor movement is opposed to these job cutting global trade deals.

[johnaries]

25. FDL is your source? Unrec. for FALSE info.

The agreement will CREATE 70,000 jobs.

[MadHound]

29. Care to put your money where your mouth is?

Granted, it will take at least five years before we can be sure one way or the other, but given how other free trade agreements have taken away jobs from this country, I have no doubt that this one will as well.

[Poll_Blind]

27. Don't think you're the only one who's noticed this, MadHound. It borders on something despicable.

I dunno, maybe it is despicable. It is a fantasy parade which I don't think many Americans will be fooled by.

There is also such an out-of-touch nature to it all, sadly typical for this administration, that it defies rational explanation.

PB

[Better Believe It]

28. How dare you write that! President Obama is a self-proclaimed warrior for the working class!

[scentopine]

48. We need to start sending comfortable shoes to the white house - nt

[undeterred]

36. I guess there's nobody left to occupy Detroit.