MyDD :: Trade Questions

Trade Questions

by Matt Stoller, Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:00:39 PM EST

This is a problem. Both Charlie Rangel and Max Baucus are looking to renew Bush's Fast Track authority to negotiate trade deals. As Sirota has pointed out, Baucus just reversed himself on the issue this week. I just cannot understand why these people think it's a good idea to give Bush more authority, or why they think these trade agreements are going to help anyone except a small group of corporate elites.

I mean, I know they are talking about making sure there are environmental and labor standards, but here's what I need to know, aside from the fact that developing countries are going to be impoverished by Doha (according to Oxfam, h/t Baldrick).

World Trade Organization chief Pascal Lamy visits Washington next week to confer with U.S. negotiators and the business community about ways to move the long-running talks forward. Lamy will have lunch with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Monday, and then plans to sit down with U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab Wednesday. Negotiators for major players in the talks, launched in 2001, have set yet another deadline for wrapping up the talks. They now hope to conclude a deal by year's end.

The WTO is meeting with the US Chamber of Commerce and Bush's trade representative. That's interesting. And then there's this.

Rangel was vague, however, on whether a Doha-only fast-track extension would have to include enforceable International Labor Organization (ILO) standards, an issue that has stalled broader negotiations between lawmakers and the administration. The Doha talks, focused on helping the world's poor, do not include labor issues.

The Center for American Progress likes Rangel's approach. I don't get it. Why do we need fast track? Why does Congress need to hand over authority to Bush? Why can't Bush negotiate an agreement and subject it to normal Congressional approval? And why does anyone in their right mind think that an agreement is going to come out of this process that actually has enforceable provisions on labor and the environment? These business groups have shown that they will lay down in the middle of the road in front of an approaching army rather than accept any constraints on their behavior.

What's the urgency here?

In an unrelated by kind of cool note, Trade Representative Susan Schwab's former husband was a professional magician.

Tags: taxes, Max Baucus, George Bush, labor, Charlie Rangel, Doha Round, Fast Track (all tags)

Permalink :: 50 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 2)

Without fast track, no trade deal will ever pass. If Congress gets to amend it, they will. And if countries know that the deal they sign won't be the one Congress will actually ratify, they will have zero incentive to negotiate in the first place.

It's different than the normal process of passing a bill because it's an agreement with one or more foreign, sovereign powers. You can't just change it willy-nilly and expect them to be interested in wasting time with our negotiators.

I get that the MyDD crowd hates all free trade deals and can't understand why anyone would want to pass them, but this constant confusion about why they would "hand over authority" is either a) utterly disingenuous or b) demonstrative of a complete failure to understand the factors at work.

With fast track, you can still just vote against the deal if you don't like it. Without fast track, there will never be a deal to vote on one way or another.

And some people, MyDD crowd notwithstanding, think the Doha round is important and worth fighting for, even if it comes with a lot of baggage.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:09:22 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

I can understand giving authority to a Democratic president, even one like Clinton, or even to a reasonable Republican like... (okay, I can't think of one), but why give it to Bush? I say we wait a couple years for a Democratic president, and give it to them.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

We've passed trade deals without Fast Track.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:29:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

Not many. There's a reason there's a pretty substantial gap in trade agreements between NAFTA and the Singapore/Chile/Australia/Morocco batch around 2003.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:48:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

Good, great, maybe that's why we still have 12 people employed at more than 10/hr.

Follow the money

by dkmich on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:51:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not many is right ... and not many ... (none / 0)

... is how many we should sign ... at least, of the kind currently being developed and proposed.

When there are clear, unambiguous benefits to the US that a wide enough variety of interested parties agree are of interest, and feel strongly enough so that efforts to kill the deal by amending it can be defeated, those are the agreements we will sign without fast track.

Therefore, fast track is, necessarily, an effort to obtain agreement to trade deals ... or, more commonly, deals supporting international wealth flows with a small amount of trade deal on the side as a sweetener ... for which there are not sufficient strong, clear benefits to a wide enough range of interests in the US in order to win that support from a broad coalition of interests.

A trade deal is a treaty plus enabling legislation, and a deal brand-named a "trade deal" that primarily focuses on freeing up the power of the wealthy to move wealth across national boundaries requires even more surrender of national sovereignty than an actual trade deal.

If a treaty is hard enough to pass, a treaty plus enabling legislation supporting a pure trade deal ought to be harder, and a treaty plus enabling legislation surrendering mutual national sovereignty to the wealthy in the nations involved should be even harder.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:47:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

You might want to look at this article from the Nation.. You see, lots of us wouldn't trust Bush scooping up dog poop let alone fast tracking more trade deals. Second, lots of us wouldn't trust Clinton, Baucus or Rangle with fast track and more trade deals. Third, lots of us are pretty damned sick and tired of one way trade and tax code that rewards business to f*ucking the country over. This crowd shouldn't be allowed to do squat with trade until they redo the tax codes and put a cap on the trade deficit. If the Dems do this, despite how opposed Americans are to trade and how screwed they have been on their incomes, well the Dems can change their Ds to little rs.

Follow the money

by dkmich on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:31:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

We understand the "factors at work." And the most important is that the Bushites have consistantly centralized wealth and power into the hands of thier class. There is no reason to believe they will improve.

by herbal tee on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:50:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree it's puzzling (3.00 / 1)

Clearly, the argument for fast track is avoiding the Treaty of Versailles problem, where the Senate seeks to revise a treaty that's already been agreed between governments.

And Dems don't want to come off as the isolationists who wrecked the Doha Round. (Although, even with USG having fast track, Doha isn't in sparkling good health!)

But - so far as I'm aware, all the bilateral FTAs need enabling legislation. And the legislation for CAFTA barely scraped through.

(There are four FTAs signed but not ratified, so far as I can remember: none of the enabling legislation has been passed, either. And if the CAFTA legislation almost didn't make it under GOP control...)

by skeptic06 on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:17:29 PM EST

Isn't that what fast track does ... (none / 0)

... makes the enabling legislation an up or down vote, without amendment? Without fast track, we would be able to kill most of these turkeys in either the House or the Senate by the death of a thousand cuts.

The up or down vote makes it more likely for the deal to be passed, but it also emboldens the supporters of the surrender of national sovereignty to wealthy individuals to reach for even more egregious deals.

CAFTA was able to scrape through, even after the experience we have had with NAFTA with the predicted benefits falling far short and the predicted costs blowing out, was able to scrape through.

We already knew that NAFTA was a trap-door, with more costs than benefits, but with so many of the costs paid up front in the transition that leaving NAFTA now would again impose more costs than benefit. But even thought NAFTA was a trap-door policy, CAFTA was able to scrape by.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:55:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

A revealing sentence (3.00 / 0)

The Doha talks, focused on helping the world's poor, do not include labor issues.

I think this statement sums up the disconnect between the DLC/Washington consensus crowd (including whoever wrote this article and presumably Rangel and Baucus too) on the causes of and solutions to world poverty. You cannot separate issues of poverty from issues of labor.

by adamterando on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:19:25 PM EST

Re: A revealing sentence (none / 0)

Look, Doha isn't perfect by any stretch (in particular, the focus on intellectual property is troubling), but it's a negotiated attempt to do some good things. It is not an all-encompassing deal that addresses every element of global poverty, nor could it be. The problem is incredibly complex, and must be addressed on any number of levels - some of which would focus explicitly on labor issues.

However, Doha is better than nothing, and is certainly better than the alternative of a series of bilateral deals imposed upon individual countries in the Global South who, lacking the collective bargaining power or rules-based multilateral system of the WTO, would have a hard time holding out for any concessions.

The issues that are focused on in Doha are critically important, including removal of devastating agricultural subsidies responsible for flooding markets with cheap food at the cost of depriving millions of subsistence farmers in the Third World of their only access to limited supplies of hard cash - used to pay for social services, education for their children, limited access to health care, etc.

In that sense, Doha deals with labor in a fundamental way that transcends any particular issue of labor standards or requirements. According to noted DLC scholars, Oxfam, addressing agricultural protectionism is perhaps the single most significant factor in addressing global poverty.

Doha might also the only way to force rich countries to establish clear limits on import tariffs for goods and services. While it's of course true that outsourcing is bad when it does nothing to increase the standard of living for people on either side of the US border, it is equally true that distorting tariffs which increase the cost of exports into the US hurt consumers here and workers in the Third World.

There is no simple solution to any of this. You are certainly correct that the Friedmanites are wrong and dangerous. But just as free traders have to answer for the practical implications of implementing trade deals, so do the "environmental and labor protections/no fast track/no FTAs" folks have to deal with the fact that trade will continue without these arrangements and is not likely to be particularly fair.

We don't have a lot of good options, but I find it difficult to imagine a solution that doesn't involve a strong multilateral body, able to focus on systemic distortions. Being against free trade as it is currently practiced is not isolationist, but it cannot be denied that it runs the risk of moving in that direction. This is important to remember, especially for those of us who preach the importance of multilateralism in other areas of foreign policy.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 1)

From your Oxfam link:

"Yet the deal that is currently emerging would harm rather than help most developing countries.
Unless the offers change, Oxfam believes developing countries would be better off missing the current deadline and waiting longer for a new set of rules. No deadline is hard enough to justify signing a new trade deal that is going to undermine development ....
There is an urgent need for fairer trade rules that more evenly benefit developing countries. However, what is on offer at the moment looks very unlikely to deliver this, and could actually make things worse. "

I know nothing about trade issues, but, um, doesn't this imply that Oxfam agrees with Matt? Why don't we push to see all the Oxfam recommendations included? Or would you say that we're better off with what's on offer now than with any deal negotiated under the Dodd or Richardson administration, given how far back that would push a possible agreement?

by BingoL on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:45:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 1)

No. It means they agree it's a complicated issue, that free trade for its own sake isn't good, but that the issues at stake in Doha are important and must be addressed in a serious way.

The statement that they "would be better off missing the current deadline" means that it is important to get a good deal, not just pass one because of a deadline.

It's a statement that we need to keep negotiating in order to generate a better offer, something that will be difficult (if not virtually impossible) to do in a world where countries know the the US no longer has fast track.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:51:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 2)

The people pushing Doha aren't free traders, they are bandits.

I don't see how Doha can be negotiated well with Bush doing the negotiating. That means he gets no fast track authority. If you want to push for fast track starting in 2009, that's a different story.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 1)

Okay, as I say I'm new to this.

A) You think that we should have trade agreement, just not this current one? Yes?

B) But you believe the best way to get the best-possible trade agreement is to grant Bush Fast Track authority right now, right? Because only if he's granted this authority will other countries continues to negotiate. Otherwise the process just comes to a halt, if I'm reading you corrently.

C) You also think that holding off on granting this authority until there's a less dangerous administration is either a waste of time, simply unhelpful, or bad for some other reason? True? Or maybe that this is an opportunity we have right now, but that will shortly disappear?

My (final) ignorant question is, given we all want to see a better agreement, why don't we do everything possible to prevent this from going ahead until there's an American administration that can be even slightly trusted to aim for 'better'?

You seem to agree that we'd be better off missing the current deadline than going ahead with this. If that's the case, I'm afraid I don't understand why you'd want to renew the Fast Track authority.

by BingoL on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (none / 0)

A couple important things that respond to this (and most other folks here)

1. Fast track imposes no responsibility to vote for free trade agreements. If Bush is a bandit, if we can't trust them, if they're horrible, whatever...they produce a deal we don't like, we vote against it.

To vote against fast track because you don't think you can trust yourself to vote responsibility a year from now is the worst application of the precautionary principle. It's like refusing to collect any taxes because you could, in theory, be tyrannical with tax collection.

2. Doha is not controlled by Bush or even the US. We play an enormously important role, and a deal is impossible if countries can't get a commitment from us to deal with a number of our trade-distorting policies. But (and this is tremendously important but) the process of negotiating the Doha Round is complex and multifaceted. A large part of it comes from the less powerful countries insisting on changes and modifications.

That means that you don't have to trust Bush to negotiate perfectly or to institute progressive changes - we are banking on the multilateral nature of the process producing a collectively-developed deal which includes benefits and costs for all sides, but which addresses some of the worst distortions responsible for global poverty.

If they US does not have fast track, there is a strong chance this whole collective process will fall apart because concessions from the US are an absolute requirement to a deal, and in a world where Congress can amend any deal, there is approximately zero chance it would escape the process unscathed.

3. I would love to have a Democratic president and USTR in charge of these negotiations, but I also think it's irresponsible to depend on that. It's still almost two full years until we get a new president, and there's obviously a chance it won't be a Democrat. Under those circumstances, I find it difficult to understand why we would not at least leave the door open.

4. This is all magnified by the fact that the deal Democrats are offering is a very limited form of fast track. I know there are a number of different proposals, but if anything passes it seems most likely to be a simple year-long extension restricted solely to the issue of Doha.

5. All of these factors mean that the debate over Doha cannot simply be reduced to "free trade has been bad for lower classes." I understand free trade has created horrible circumstances for many and has been at best a mitigated positive for others. That said, if we don't want to completely toss the idea of "free and fair" trade aside, it would not serve us well to walk out on the Doha Round.

This is not outsourcing, this is not in any way exclusive with the idea of demanding better labor and environmental protections, this is not in any way exclusive with the ideas cited in the Nation article linked to above. This is an important debate with many factors at work. Fast track is by no means the answer, but I think there's some chance it's an important part of a broader strategy.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:23:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 1)

So I think there's agreement about these things:

The Doha round is currently unacceptable.
The US plays an enormously important role in Doha.
A Democratic administration would be a huge (though possibly still insufficient) improvement.

And disgreements:

Would voting against Fast Track authority for Bush make the whole process fall apart entirely and perhaps irreparably (which I believe is what you're saying, Baldrick)? Or would voting against simply stop the process for now (to be relatively easily re-started when a more trustworthy US administration is in place to play that 'enormously important' role)?

Can Democrats can be trusted to vote against an awful, Bush-bandit deal in sufficient numbers to stop it (which you believe is the case, if I read correctly)? Or can they not be so trusted?

And, finally, and really the only question: are free trade agreements which are enormously influenced by Republican administrations of the currently-existing type necessarily worse than no free trade agreements at all?

I think that's the bottom line. You appear to believe that, despite the loyal Bushie influence on free trade deals, we might end up with something valuable. And that, if we only end with dross, the Democrats will all act together to vote anti-dross. I'm not really sure why you'd believe either of those things.

by BingoL on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:08:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 1)

Baldrick is expressing Tom Friedmaneque pony plan sentiments.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (none / 0)

I think this is a pretty fair assessment.

I don't have a lot of hope for fast track doing anything positive, but neither am I particularly afraid of it. And I do worry about what rejecting the whole notion of multilateral free trade negotiations out of hand (which certainly some, if not all, people internationally will perceive this as) will do for the future of our trade credibility and the possibility of creating a responsible and more fair arrangement.

And I am frustrated with the idea that all of the injustices that undoubtedly occur are the result of "free trade agreements" and would be substantially less likely without them. FTAs are not the answer, and neither is Doha, but some kind of multilateral system is essential, and I'm a lot more worried of doing serious damage to that than I am about a one year limited extension of fast track.

Anyways, I have other things to do and don't really have the time to argue about this any more. Plus, I'm getting fed up with Matt's interjections, but it's been a good discussion with you. I hope you at least gave some thought to what I'm saying - you certainly gave me some things to chew on.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 2)

You are looking at this backwards. What damages multilateral systems is these systems screwing up an economic situation for millions of people, not whether Fast Track gets passed.

I am frustrated with your outlook as well, since you keep implying that people who disagree with your assumptions (a) don't understand the issues (b) don't care about free trade (c) reject multilateral trading systems and (d) aren't concerned with humanitarian concerns in trading relationships. At the same time, you won't grapple with the reality that these trade agreements, including the one you seem to be pushing, have hurt millions of people.

It's a snotty and condescending attitude, and it's one you ought to correct. I'm a former supporter of these trading agreements, someone you should be trying to persuade instead of condescend to. And yet you're pretending like we should support giving authority to Bush or we don't care about the developing world.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 11:12:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (3.00 / 3)

I said I was done, and probably should be, but I'll respond to this and then really be done.

I posted what I thought were some reasoned arguments. If my attitude comes of snotty, I'm sorry. It's not meant to be. But it's hard when all I ever hear on this site is constant bashing of "free trade" as a concept without dealing with the details.

And it's especially hard when all of your contributions to this discussions were one or two line jabs which (to me, at least) felt much more like attacks then counter-arguments. I'm trying to deal with the nuance (successfully or no), but you consistently call me Friedman, declare that free trade is absolutely bad. "Period." And so on. Plus, in this comment, you accuse me of a number of things I've gone out of my way to avoid. My argument is absolutely not that there is no good-faith argument to be made against fast track. Of course there is. People have made some of them here, and rather persuasively so.

I'm simply trying to get people to resist the knee-jerk reaction that "since free trade has hurt people we ought to resist it" and warn that good intentions on these issues might (I repeat, might) endanger some good that could come from a negotiated Doha Round. It's a concern that we ought to be open to, which your original post expressing befuddlement at what these Democrats could even be thinking, and many many comments here recently don't seem to do.

I don't think there is a substantial policy disagreement, but there is the important issue of whether the policy details get discussed. Unless you think that nothing I've said has any worth, wouldn't you agree that it's worthwhile for a debate to take place where both sides are forced to defend and understand a more nuanced explanation of "free trade?"

I don't know. Maybe we're both guilty, but I'm just a schmo - you're a big blogger. If I say stupid things, it doesn't affect much, but you have a lot more influence on a lot of people. Not to say you have a "responsibility," but you obviously care a lot about progressive issues, and the more MyDD sounds like a place for like-minded people to slap each other on the back about how much they hate X, Y, or Z thing, the less powerful (and interesting) it is.

I guess what I'd like to hear is an explanation of a trade policy that fixes these problems. And I don't mean this in a snotty way - I would seriously love for these free trade debates to have more substance. I would love for the netroots to express their concerns about trade more often in a positive fashion ("here's a solution") than a negative one ("why are they screwing us?").

Sorry for the rambling, and I hope that clarifies a little bit.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 11:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (none / 0)

We need to get to a trade-based carbon tax on financial flows. That's the end-state. But economists have to think this one out before I can write about it.

by Matt Stoller on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:55:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A revealing sentence (none / 0)

Shh, you're not suppose to tell. Your blowing their excuse to maximize profits for global corporations while giving them tax breaks and allowing them to steal the water and other resources in under developed countries. You really blew it now.

Follow the money

by dkmich on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nothing is better than Doha. (none / 0)

A Doha with more favorable terms to low income nations is better than a Doha with the terms originally proposed ... however, no deal at all would be better.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:57:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

And can I ask what was so offensive about me pointing out that voting for fast track doesn't commit the US to anything because it still gives Congress the power to simply vote against any agreement?

Did that really deserve a troll rating?

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:54:51 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

I often don't even look at the ratings on MyDD.

It deserved a counter-argument, but certainly not a troll rating.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 10:58:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

Didn't deserve a troll rating, but I think it's naive. Keeping the Democrats voting together tends to be like herding cats at the best of times and even if a trade deal is manifestly awful you're still going to have a few conservative Dems blinded by pork or cowardice who will vote for it. And Bush is likely to try to negotiate some manifestly awful deals, which the Republicans will support as they don't stand for free trade so much as unfair trade - that which makes the rich richer, and screws everyone else.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:26:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

Gosh, lines like "Flooding markets with cheap food" are a little grating. How about our markets flooded with cheap goods?

by johnmorris on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:09:50 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

They're not exclusive of each other. We should find a way to deal with them both.

But, that said, it's simply wrong that there is an easy parallel between cheap DVD players being sold at Wal-Mart and millions of tons of grain being dumped in sub-Saharan Africa where they substantially lower the price that millions and millions of farmers who barely survive (or don't) on the couple of dollars they can squeeze out of their excess crops.

One of those things undercuts US jobs and absolutely does make life difficult for workers here. One of them results in the deaths of tens of thousands of people (or many, many more depending on how widely you want to cast the net). The first is terrible and needs to be addressed, but the second is an atrocity.

Should those people be any less our concern simply because they don't live within our borders?

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:30:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

According to the Oxfam study you linked to, Doha does not address these issues, if anything, it makes the agricultural dumping problems worse.

Stop disingenuously pretending that Doha has a humantarian benefit. It's just a trade deal written by bandits.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:34:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

See my numbers 1, 2, and 3 above.

If Doha negotiations produce nothing good for developing countries, Democrats should vote against it, as should developing countries.

The Oxfam report is a recommendation to developing countries to do precisely that, as well as a recommendation that countries like the US offer more, which is unlikely to happen if the whole process breaks down.

It is certainly not a call to simply kill the Doha Round.

by Baldrick on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:40:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

Our leverage is at a high point now, before Fast Track passes. Once it passes it is difficult to stop trade deals. In other words, if you trust Bush give him Fast Track authority to negotiate.

I really wish you would stop the charade that this is about reasonable trade agreements and a fair process. Doha will not bring humanitarian benefits. Bush will not negotiate in good faith and he will not help developing countries.

There is no pony plan here. It's Bush's way or no Doha. Period. Pick and stop the pony plan nonsense.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:08:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

But is Doha saveable? Oxfam recommends that the first world offers more, but is Bush likely to do that? Is there even a single leader amongst the G7 nations with the courage to go head-to-head with the multinationals on a point of principle? About the only ones who might do that are the French, and for them it'd be an issue of prestige, not principle.

Since Bush can't be trusted and appears to have little to no interest in helping his own poor, let alone those of the developed world, wouldn't it be better if not to kill Doha at least to obstruct it until America can get a leader who won't make things worse than they already are?

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 06:31:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

The urgency is "quick get a trade deal while Bush is still in power" from the business folks plus the concerns that Baldrick is raising from a humanitarian perspective.

But I agree with you, Matt, I doubt any trade deal negotiated by this administration would have any enforeable environmental or labor standards. Since all previous trade deals have been really bad for most people in the world, I don't see any reason to encourage a new trade deal until we have a President and Congress who are serious about raising standards, not lowering them.

And the problem with fast track is that once a (lousy) treaty has been negotiated, there is tremendous pressure on Congress to go along and pass it as we saw on the vote on CAFTA. With Democrats in power it would be harder to force through a bad treaty, but there are lots of DLC Democrats who would jump ship and many others who might be enticed by side deals.

We need to stop the process until we have adult supervision: a President and Congress who will act responsibly.

John McCain wants to make abortion illegal

by RandomNonviolence on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:11:48 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

Baldrick's concerns aren't humanitarian, according to the evidence that he himself brought into the thread.

by Matt Stoller on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:34:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 3)

As far as the business community is concerned fast track is the whole ballgame. They look at it like this: it's one thing to come to a deal with two negotiators in a room, that they understand. It's another thing to do it with over 500 people in a room plus however many legislators from the second country (let alone the world). They talk about having to buy off legislators. That gets costly. The absolute nightmere of any business lobbyist or his client is a trade deal without fast track. The horror...

These people don't believe in democracy even of the representative sort. They believe in dollaracracy. Give legislators a say in trade deals? C'mon. They believe in the ligitimacy of the market, not politics. They believe in the world economy, not nation-states.

I'm still, mostly, a free-trader but there is a need for a pause to determine what works and what "free trade" really means. A pause that refreshes. The Washington consensus is over.

by howardpark on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 09:41:38 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 2)

It is hard to find an example of anybody, not a major owner of an international corporation, who has seen any positive result from a "Free Trade" treaty. Certainly NAFTA has had overwhelmingly negative effects on the citizens of the three countries involved. Like the rest of the market religion, the free trade catechism is largely nonsense. The overall effect of the last 35 years of this activity is the construct that the WHO has called "The Global Slum". We really need to just stop it for at least long enough to have a sensible discussion about what our economy should be expected to do and to whom it ought to do it. These theories have transformed a society of widespread prosperity, growing egalitarianism and a charitable attitude toward the world into what we have today. We can do better than we are doing by just stopping what we are doing. Fast tracking it is more than stupid, its crazy. I assume that everyone arguing for it is either deluded or on the payroll.

by johnmorris on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:15:33 PM EST

Max Baucus (3.00 / 1)

is a big corrupt jackass.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future

by Nonpartisan on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:53:10 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

I agree, Matt. Time to make this an issue. The way to do that is to get the first tier candidates, especially Edwards to confront this issue of fair trade and the sell-out to Bush.

by cmpnwtr on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 12:24:26 AM EST

Re: Trade Questions (3.00 / 1)

I think the only reason Fast Track is on the table at all is because not very many people know anything about it or how damaging it is. The defining characteristic of Fast Track is non-transparency: providing cover for corporate giveaways. And the mainstream media has not educated its audience about this issue, holding steadfast to its unmindful "free trade" ideology.

Fast Track allows the President to choose the countries, negotiate a deal and sign a deal, all before Congress gets to vote and even then, it's with no amendments and only limited debate.

Matt's post is in itself a step in the right direction.

http://www.EyesOnTrade.org

by hollysnj on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 01:26:08 AM EST

two big problems: trade agreements & Bush (3.00 / 1)

The purpose of those trade agreements is to serve banks and corporations who don't give a rat's ass about average Americans.

They are bad even when negotiated by a Democratic president.

Giving Bush ANY authority to do anything is insane on it's face.

Congress should be sending one message to Bush on his authority for the rest of his time in office: don't push any buttons, flip any switches, or touch the steering wheel. Just sit there quietly until you are removed or the clock runs out.

by yurbud on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 05:56:07 AM EST

South Korea and Edwards (none / 0)

David Sirota has a post on Breaking Blue saying John Edwards is against a trade pact with South Korea. I understand opposition to NAFTA and CAFTA as these are largely third world countries ripe for outsourcing.

Korea is not. It is a first world democracy with a high standard of living - auto workers in S. Korea make on avg $60K plus benefits. There is a strong labor movement in S. Korea including massive strikes in the automotive and shipbuilding industries in the late 1990s.

I am against unequitable trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. It is one thing to ask us to compete with countries where they pay people poverty wages but it is a completely different thing to ask us to compete with countries on an equal footing. If we can't do that then we have real problems.

I'd really like to understand why Edwards opposes this deal. One thought is the US auto industry which is reeling largely due to its own poor management decisions. Shedding light on this would be greatly appreciated.

by John Mills on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 02:38:51 PM EST

Re: South Korea and Edwards (none / 0)

The Korea deal includes a free trade zone in North Korea. Read Sirota's piece over at Kos.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: South Korea and Edwards (3.00 / 1)

Well, on his site, he says this:

Some of Edwards' specific objections to the proposed trade agreement are:

-While the agreement would immediately eliminate U.S. tariffs on Korean vehicles, it leaves in place a discriminatory tax based on engine size that disproportionately affects American cars.

-Workers in South Korea lack many basic rights. "South Korea is a country where hundreds of workers are thrown in jail each year for attempting to exercise basic labor rights," said Edwards.

-The agreement creates the possibility of providing free access for manufacturing imports made in North Korean industrial zones, where the workers earn less than 10 percent of what South Koreans earn.

-The agreement opens up American markets to Korean agricultural imports, but does not allow American beef into Korea.

Edwards actually announced his opposition to this trade deal a couple of months ago.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Sun Apr 22, 2007 at 07:56:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards is first! (none / 0)

As I predicted and hoped, Edwards is the first to take the Dem Congress to task on so called "free trade." I hope Obama and Hillary join him. If not then this has to be a top issue in the pres. primary.

by cmpnwtr on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 03:18:37 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

Matt Said: "I just cannot understand why these people think it's a good idea to give Bush more authority, or why they think these trade agreements are going to help anyone except a small group of corporate elites."

This is a joke, right? Or rhetorical?

As to the first clause above: Pushers of fast track don't care about the President having this authority; they want it to attach to The Presidency.

As to the second: they don't.

by scudbucket on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:54:15 PM EST

Re: Trade Questions (none / 0)

"Gosh, lines like "Flooding markets with cheap food" are a little grating. How about our markets flooded with cheap goods?"

How bout our (labor) markets flooded with high paying jobs?

by scudbucket on Sat Apr 21, 2007 at 08:58:31 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.