For a long time there was a two -sided consensus on free trade. President George HW Bush, a Republican, negotiated the North American Free Trade contract, and Democrat Bill Clinton adopted her. In the Senate he reigned in 1993 with the support of 27 Democrats and 34 Republicans. The consensus was by no means unanimous, but it was wide enough to constantly develop the case.
On Tuesday, the Senate voting against the consideration of the bill on the transfer to President Barack Obama “The authority of quick tracking” on trade agreements suggests that these days have disappeared. Only one democrat supported him, with 42 opposite-shared by Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Economic anxiety, hostility towards foreigners, the reluctance of huge corporations and the distrust of Obama-in both parties-they resisted the Old Coalition. Even Hillary Clinton is on the fence.
It is straightforward to reject free trade in part, because we already like so many awards. Each senator who voted “no” should be required by the right to drive only American cars built no later than in 1975, before the influx of Japanese causes a gigantic improvement in quality and reliability.
They should also give their iPhones, gathered in China and flat -screen TVs, produced in Korea and Japan. And buy toys all your children and grandchildren from home suppliers. And give up Colombian coffee, bananas and Chilean grapes in Guatemala, as well as 91 percent of all eating seafood.
However, at the moment legislators and citizens who oppose the president’s trade promotion authority have nothing to worry about. They can show disgust with free trade, while enjoying all his reward. If Obama does not receive a contract he negotiated with 11 Pacific countries, we will not lose the benefits of existing imports. We just don’t get the benefits of additional trade.
The dominant complaint is that commercial transactions send American jobs abroad and lower American wages. But the effect is significantly exaggerated. It is true that many American industries competing with foreign rivals have seen the companies shrink and disappear. This regrettable pattern also appeared in sectors that are largely national.
Large airlines, such as Delta and United, went bankrupt, and their compounds were squeezed because travelers gathered on cheaper national carriers. The main problem of massive cars are “Japanese” cars built in places such as Kentucky and Ohio.
The newspapers did not lose their revenues from foreign competition, but because so many ads migrated to the internet. The bookstores disappeared thanks to the company from Seattle named Amazon.
The production of production in the USA is currently almost 50 percent higher than in 1994, when Nafta occurred. So why was employment decreased? Because companies and employees have become more productive, which allows them to show more goods with less work.
If you think the problem is that foreigners sell too much to us and buy too little from us, a trade agreement in the Pacific should be your thing. The minimum impact on our import, but would bring a significant boost in our exports.
The United States already has one of the lowest tariff indicators in the world, on average about 2 percent. One of the main effects of free trade agreements, which we come to other nations, is forcing them to reduce their duties, which are usually higher. Another purpose of this agreement is to undermine open closed foreign markets in agricultural products and services, enabling American companies to sell more.
Eight years of economic contraction and turmoil were put in many politicians and constituencies in defensive squatting, treating all changes as a threat. But it was not trade that caused a housing disaster in the US or financial crash. In fact, exports have been one of the main growth engines in recent years.
We can not simply close global trade. If we avoid trade agreements with the Pacific nations, the Chinese will be elated to enter. Globalization will develop no matter what we do. Trade negotiations are a way for us to ensure that when so, the rules applied by other governments do not put our companies in an unfavorable unfavorable situation.
Many Democrats were aware that there was no future in Kadanie behind trade barriers. In 1993, one of them was Senator Ted Kennedy, who said: “All the problems faced by working families … will be even worse if the kerosene is defeated.” Elizabeth Warren is now taking his place.
