Trade Wars: Obama vs. ... Obama?
As Barack Obama would happily concede, words are powerful. Words matter. So let's briefly look at the words of Obama on trade. Here is Obama from his book The Audacity of Hope, sounding all Tom Friedman:
We can try to slow globalization, but we can't stop it. The U.S. economy is now so integrated with the rest of the world, and digital commerce so widespread, that it's hard to imagine, much less enforce, an effective regime of protectionism. A tariff on imported steel may give temporary relief to U.S. steel producers, but it will make every U.S. manufacturer who uses steel in its products less competitive on the world market.... U.S. Border Patrol agents can't interdict the services of a call center in India, or stop an electrical engineer in Prague from sending his work via email to a company in Dubuque. When it comes to trade, there are few borders left.
And here is Obama at the Democratic presidential debate in Ohio, sounding all Dennis Kucinich:
If you travel through Youngstown and you travel through communities in my home state of Illinois, you will see entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal.... But you know, when I first moved to Chicago in the early '80s and I saw steelworkers who had been laid off of their plants—black, white, and Hispanic—and I worked on the streets of Chicago to try to help them find jobs, I saw then that the net costs of many of these trade agreements, if they're not properly structured, can be devastating.
Now it would be easy to say that those two quotes are not necessarily in conflict, that they are merely examples of a political candidate emphasizing different aspects of an agenda. Maybe. But words matter. Yesterday the Canadian trade minister cautioned that if the United States pulls out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, America might lose preferential access to Canadian and Mexican oil.
Over at Reason, Steve Chapman trots out some interesting factoids about NAFTA (as bullet-pointed by me):
1) Over the last 14 years, the American economy has added a net total of 25 million jobs. When NAFTA took effect in 1994, the unemployment rate was 6.7 percent. Today it's 4.9 percent.
2) According to data compiled by Harvard economist Robert Z. Lawrence, the average blue-collar worker's wages and benefits, adjusted for inflation, have risen by 11 percent under NAFTA. Instead of driving pay scales down, it appears to have pulled them up.
3) Manufacturing output has not only expanded, but has expanded far faster than it did in the decade before NAFTA. The problem is that as productivity rises, we can make more stuff with fewer people. That's not a bad thing. In fact, it's essentially the definition of economic progress.
4) Gary Clyde Hufbauer, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, estimates that 90 percent of the people in his profession regard the accord as a good thing.
5) Jagdish Bhagwati, a Columbia University trade economist, supports Obama and thinks his positions on trade are generally better than Clinton's. "But on NAFTA," Bhagwati told me, "he is dead wrong."
I think the überpoint is this: Americans are growing ever more skeptical about trade, and antitrade rhetoric on the campaign trail may well be adding momentum to the forces of protectionism. What if the economy does enter a recession, perhaps a deep one? Won't there be incredible pressure on a President Obama and a heavily Democratic Congress to indeed pull out of NAFTA and attempt to slow Chinese exports to America by taking harsh measures to force that nation to let its currency appreciate? The yuan has been steadily rising for some 2½ years, but economist and China watcher Donald Straszheim says that run is about over:
The currency keeps rising, but a significant economic policy turn in China is brewing by mid-2008. Beijing will worry about the economy becoming too cold rather than remaining too hot. And the policy of allowing the currency to gradually appreciate will stop for a time—with fears that China's all-important export sector will be toppled by the global slowdown.
A former White House official who now works on Wall Street recently told me how year after year, big-money investors fret about increased protectionism but down deep really can't imagine America is going to start a trade war or build walls around its economy. Just too horrible a scenario to imagine, ultimately. But a weak economy plus one-party control of Washington plus a flare-up of Chinese trade tensions might mean investors need to start imagining a little harder.
Tags: international trade | trade | Barack Obama
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (32)
Reader Comments
Obama Vs Obama
Very poor analysis
Anti-Trade?
How is being FOR "Fair Trade" anti-trade? Senator Obama, and presumably Senator Clinton, is NOT against trade. To make such an assertion is ridiculous.
From the Ohio debate Senator Obama said the following:
"I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world, and we can compete with anybody. And we can't shy away from globalization. We can't draw a moat around us."
and from his website:
"Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world"
Obama v Obama
A cogent reminder that much of Obama's pitch is the same old politics of expediency.( One can only guess he wasn't the change we were waiting for)
Funny though how the true believers manage to cope.Their hysterical reactions here are pretty funny
This poor article in US News
This article reminds me totally of the current attacks pointed at Barack Obama from not only the Republicans but the Clinto campaign as well. Why is everyone trying to stretch Obamas words and associations to say that he is a walking contradition when all he does is acknowledge some obvious truths?
NAFTA is not all good or all bad, but more should have been done to prepare American workers for this dramatic economic change that has plagued Michigan and Ohio.
Grant
Obama, in the most recent debate, stated that he would repudiate NAFTA if the partners (Mexico,Canadian) did not agree to negotiate. He has already said that he would not allow Mexican trucks access across our borders (in direct contravention of the treaty) to earn a Teamsters endorsement. Do a Google search to come up with the someone concerned responses from the Canadian and Mexican foreign ministers.
I'd like to know how a President Obama would rebuild our standing the in the world if the first things he is talking about doing would alienate our two closest neighbors. That is not even mentioning trying to nurture countries like Columbia along with the carrot of free trade.
Fair trade = buzzword for labor protection
Here's a good example of how fair trade is a buzzword for protecting big labor - is Chinese steel made in mills conforming to U.S. emissions standards? Perhaps not, but China is a soverign country and isn't going to change until its own citizenry demand it, which they are starting to. And of course, China might very well have their own issues with our products, in retaliation (hmm... lets be a little bit lax about enforcing intellectual property restrictions on U.S. microprocessors.. ban Chinese steel, we will encourage knock-offs of Intel processors)
But the winner in this would be U.S. steel which would gain market protections (and higher prices) unti China met some arbitrary standards. And the loser is the U.S. consumer, which pays an extra hundred bucks for an automobile or a dishwasher.
Obama is lying, stupid, or evil ....
At least I hope so. His insane anti-trade rhetoric is evil. Our best hope is he's just a liar. He's either a liar, stupid, or evil. Anybody who doesn't admit that free trade is good has to be one of the three.
HUSSEIN Obama has been caught lying
He said he would ditch NAFTA, but then tells the Canadian ambassador he is lying about that. Obama has been caught in a direct lie. This is spreading like wildfire and is really damaging his campaign.
Pain is your friend
Minimum wage laws, laws respecting layoffs and plant shutdowns, tariffs, subsidies and laws and regulations enhancing the bargaining power of organized labor in the country insulate workers from the incremental impacts of the global labor market. Instead of receiving and acting upon the signals the market sends, workers remain or become further entrenched in jobs (and lifestyles) that cannot long be sustained in the face of global competition. When the bitter end arrives, politicians clamor to offer life support for businesses that cannot and should not be resuscitated.
Senator Obama, if elected, will likely enjoy having tea with the world's tyrants more than breaking bread with our allies. I fail to see how our standing in the world (for what it is worth) will improve when it becomes apparent that we do not value the commitments we make to other nations.
Do Democrats lie?
Does the average American know that Canada is a massive supplier of oil to the US under the NAFTA agreement?
If the Democrats open the NAFTA agreement ( as they legally can, with six months notice) then the oil supply issue would also be on the table.
It's a point all Americans should be aware of.
Joe Molnar,
Ontario, Canada.
Fair Trade?
What does Obama mean by FAIR trade? NAFTA is betwen the US, Canada and Mexico. China has nothing to do with it.
And... when Mexico cannot improve their "standards" to a level where ours are (it would be impossible - for decades), then wouldn't by Obama's own words, he have to pull out?
Do you see the double-speak here? If not, these politicians will fool you all of the time.
Plus, we just found out that one of his top advisors called a minister in Canada and said to ignore the NAFTA comments. It's just political rhetoric. That proves my point....
He want's it both ways. He knows that NAFTA is good for the OVERALL U.S.A. But it may have hurt Ohio a bit, so he's telling them how bad it is.
It's either good or bad.
He's making people in Ohio think he'll end it. When he won't. And both people in Ohio and outside believe him. And they now believe two different things.
Yes, most politicians do this... I just can't stand fools coming here and defending political double-speak. Basically, politicians lie, without actually lying.
And it looks like there's plent of people here that can't see that. Right over their heads. Do you hate lying politicians? Guess what, Obama is one too. (All three running are.) He's just the only one that has YOU fooled.
Obama the mouthpiece
What we're seeing here is Obama's lack of expertise on most of the critical issues that face this country, and how that void is so rapidly and expediently filled by whichever off-the-shelf position will most easily gain him backing from whoever he's trying to buy at the time.
We can expect to see more of this should the man be elected; he'll be a puppet of the pressure groups.
I'm as sick as the next American of George Bush's attempts at public speaking, which seem to have been on a long downhill slide since the days he wiped Ann Richards off the map in Texas, but to elect a man whose sole qualification for office is that he's a first-rate mouthpiece is taking things too far.
Lie?
Politicians lie all of the time.
If a politician told us the truth - all of the truth, all of the time. And told us what we NEEDED to hear, not what we want to hear.....
He/She couldn't get elected to City Council.
We do not elect truthful politicians. Period.
Most of America wants things - given to them. For the past 60-80 years it's been the politicians that GIVE AWAY the most things that are elected. That's why we're in debt. "Free" healthcare (no such thing), Tax Cuts,... it's all the same game.
Anyone here who believes Obama or Hillary or McCain always tells the truth and tells you what you NEED to hear.... is a fool.
Seeing as how our last few presidents included Bush and Clinton, there are a LOT of fools out there.
Obama on NAFTA
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/
Jim Geraghty at the National Review Online "Campaign Spot" wrote that a "senior member of Barack Obama's campaign" called the Canadian embassy to tell them not to worry about Obama's talking about pulling out of NAFTA, because "it was just campaign rhetoric and not to be taken seriously".
So Barack Obama tells American voters things that Canadians are not supposed to take seriously! What other parts of Obama's campaign rhetoric are not to be taken seriously? Can any of it be taken seriously?
To whom is Obama lying--Canadians or Americans? Don't American voters deserve the truth? Does anyone really know what Obama would do if elected President?
Let's get real
those NAFTA quotes were taken out of context, number 1.
there is nothing inconsistent about wanting to renegotiate NAFTA to add protections for workers and the environment; while also believing that we live in a global community, one where the US economy is dependent on trade.
and number 2, the CTV Canada NAFTA story you guys are banging on about has already been debunked, ie, proven to be completely made up.
look, let's take our shots at politicians, absolutely. but if we are going to take shots, let's at least be truthful about the shots we're going to argue, huh?
Factoids
I find it interesting that thoes who do not like your article and factoids also do not rebutt them. Does that mean that they accept them as facts?
Who can tell what Obama is saying about NAFTA?
He's already been caught telling Canada one story while he's telling the American voters another, watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-HcA
Who is he lying to? Well there's a survey poll at:
http://vet4hill.googlepages.com/surveyindex.htm
To Let's get real:
You are so right on point. Except, perhaps we should listen to what these comments are trying so hard not to say....
All news accounts of the nafta call are titled: "This story is a hoax (lie)"? yet huge amounts of venom can be detected in comments of outrage. You see, they really want to express their true rejection of Senator Obama but are ashamed to admit the source of their objection.
I suppose that one boogey after another will be invented to mask again and again and release again and again suppression of the angst of their outrage.
the messiah Obama
it's interesting how those in Obama's cult can't see anything but the bright light that shines from their god.
Lie or no lie?
Is CTV's report a lie, or did Obama's top economic advisor make that call. Somebody's lying here. If it's Obama then this is hardly "changing Washington", this is good ole fashioned political pandering-only with possibly serious consequences. But I'm sure nobody will follow up with any tough questioning and force the candidate to come clean.
I'm not wild about any of the three candidates, but what I really don't get about Obama is; when did he make the transition from obscure Washington politicain with no real legislative accomplishments to speak of, to GOD? Why weren't women fainting in his presence two years ago? There's actually a website that asks the question: Is Obama the Messiah? Answer: NO. In fact he maight just be another used car salesman that the media has annointed as the "Black JFK". If you people don't start thinking and stop emoting we're going to be in serious trouble. Stop the cult of personality BS and start asking the truly important questions about out of control government spending, suffocating entitlement programs, border security, etc...
Odd, the MSM isn't covering this
If Obama becomes president, the chances of him pulling out of or even doing anything major regarding NAFTA are extremely slim. Even as he tells Ohioans one thing, he says something quite different here:
tinyurl.com/23nfhb
That link discusses a recent opinion piece from Obama in which he indicates his support for Bush's SPP (spp.gov), aka "NAFTA on steroids". He wants a few left-leaning changes, but those are relatively minor and cosmetic in nature. No matter what he says in Ohio, at the end of the day he supports Bush's SPP scheme.
Not only that, but he has to speak in code to do it.
Peaked Obama?
"and number 2, the CTV Canada NAFTA story you guys are banging on about has already been debunked, ie, proven to be completely made up."
'Fraid not. CTV stands by its story and the gentlemen named decline to deny.
"NAFTA is not all good or all bad, but more should have been done to prepare American workers for this dramatic economic change that has plagued Michigan and Ohio."
I don't know about Ohio, but Michigan's industrial base--a one-trick pony--shot itself in the foot decades ago (and long before NAFTA) by not responding to Americans' desires for choices in smaller, more fuel efficient cars and allowing the UAW to browbeat it into accepting that essentially unskilled assembly line labor deserved a skilled craftsman's wage/benefit package. And Michigan's state and local governments have been mismanaged for quite some time now.
I sense the halo begins to tarnish and the support is a little less mindlessly exuberant. Has Obamania peaked? Doesn't auger well for November.
obama will save us!
can't you see that these sort of hit jobs only help our guy! people in america are hurting! we always hurt when republicans are in office, and then we don't when democrats come along. obama will save us and heal our souls! and the best part is, i don't have to do anything except go to the polls one day a year -- how many chances does one have to make life wonderful for so little effort? go obama!
Free trade is preferrable
Conor of Ark, I like Obama as well, but pulling out of NAFTA would be a terrible idea. Protectionism is nothing more than corporate welfare. If you put up tariffs to protect this company or that industry, it is no different than giving them special tax breaks or subsidies.
The protectionists would have us believe trade outcomes break out along class lines, rich get richer with free trade and everyone else is worse off. This is flat out baloney. Yes, if we put up trade barriers, some workers in protected industries may get paid more in the short term but investors will also see higher returns and management will get more. The rest of us, those who consume, those who export, etc will lose out. We tried protectionism back in 1930 and it greatly accelerated the Depression. I like Obama, but he is wrong her and SHAME OF HILLARY CLINTON for not sticking up for a treaty (NAFTA) that is, on balance, GOOD FOR AMERICA.
another liberal who wants to spend your money
lets face it. liberals want to spend your money their way. clinton, obama, edwards, huckabee all want to take your money and spend it so as to improve their standing and gather more power all the while feeling soooo good about themselves.
its not my fault that so many americans chose to be stupid and lazy. they choose to watch tv rather than get better job skills. they chose to smoke and drink rather than exercise. they chose to have unprotected sex at a young age and are not stuck with a bunch of rowdy children rather than waiting. they chose these actions i didn't force them to. so, i don't feel sorry for them when they while trade is unfair.
Obama the fraud
It's funny how many people defend Obama even though he is the essence of flip flop on every issue he has confronted, from campaign finance, to Cuba, and now free trade.
Let's see if he actually admits that he has known Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers for over ten years. Obama the fraud comes from the cesspool of liberal Chicago politics. He has even called referred to Farrakahn as "Minister". People do not know this yet, but they will.
When the political wind blows Obama the fraud will put his finger in the air. It's funny how he actually thinks independents will vote for him on election day once they find out his banner is only a liberal agenda disguised in some eloquent rhetoric of unity.
People will face the truth and they will vote for McCain.
Also lying to poor Africans
Obama says that he wants to do more for impoverished countries, such as those in Africa. Yet, many agree (including Jimmy Carter) that an end to protectionist policies of the US and other rich countries would do more to help poor countries than any amount of aide ever could. Yet another example of Obama's contradictory promises.
NAFTA?
I am very sad for the people who go on & on about renegotiating NAFTA while crying that the factories in their area have closed and their jobs have gone to "slave laborers in China".
Last I knew China is not in North America - it would be nice if at least one of the three major candidates were smart enough to point this out and then have some statistics handy to support their "true" position on Free Trade. Or any of the other issues on the table for that matter.
Don't blame NAFTA
I agree with JKF of Wa.As a Canadian I buy alot of products from USA and Canada.We own a truck and a car made by GM.We just bought a lawn tractor which said "MADE IN USA'.We always,always buy USA/Canadian products.Costs more but the quality is definitely better.We want to keep the jobs alive here instead of shipping them to China.If all Canadians and Americans buy vehicles made in USA instead of buying foreign vehicles you will keep the jobs in your own countries especially those poor folks from Ohio who are down and out.How many Ohions are driving foreign vehicles or buying made in USA products???Have your pride and be patriotic.That way the jobs will stay in your own country.Buy USA.Keep jobs in USA.
Americas Or China?
Personally, First of all, I don't understand why we are importing things from China that could be made closer to home such as toys and gadgets...etc.?? To be honest, I would much rather see Mexico manufacturing those items for us. It would produce jobs for them and in turn encourage them to stay in their own country instead of breaking the law to come here and take jobs from us. I wouldn't want them making automobiles though or medicine. Some things we need to covet and produce ourselves in order to meet our own standards and secure those jobs in the US and Canada where they originated .The US for some reason is allowing China to manufacture medicines that are killing people, toys that are making children sick, toothpaste with antifreeze in it and we still trade with them??? I say, if we have a need to produce certain insignificant items cheaper then we ought to be trading with our neighbors versus China. We should not, on the other hand jeopardize the quality of what we produce by allowing substandard parts made elsewhere for our own goods. I think we are undermining the quality of our goods by outsourcing the production of parts. You can disagree with me but I think it makes more sense than what we are doing now.
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
I see no conflict with what obama is saying
If you write an artical titled Obama verse Obama, you would think there would actually be comments that contradict eachother by Obama. However this does not have that at all in it. You were right when you said, "it would be easy to say that those two quotes are not necessarily in conflict". Maybe he is wrong about nafta but then the title should be Obamas views on NAFTA. This artical is an example of very poor reporting, the writer should be ashamed of themself.
Feb 29, 2008 11:56:01 AM [permalink] [report comment]