• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bernie Sanders challenges Hillary Clinton on trade deal and Iraq war

Ah... yeah... okay... guy with "Chomsky" for a name. :p
Hah!

Thanks.

171 posts, and it appears you're the first to make the connection (to the point of remark).

But you're right, I believe Naom does consider his ideology as 'libertarian-socialist', whereas I stop a bit short at 'libertarian-left'.

He's also been described as 'anarchist', which is probably fair, since I've always heard: "A libertarian is someone who doesn't have the guts to be an anarchist"! :mrgreen:
 
[above emphasis added by bubba]

here you go, don; read this
and please pay special attention to item 8, which has been forcefully addressed by Liz Warren as undermining the mechanisms now in place to prevent the financial corporations from again undermining the world's economy:

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/downl...de-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

With respect to the linked document:

The document states that the “Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement…” As noted previously, no agreement has been reached at this point in time. There currently is no Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The document notes, “The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world.” Aside from the fact that the text of the agreement is being negotiated, if he wants to express concern about corporate input, that’s a process issue. Obviously the myriad parties who could be impacted will have input. That includes companies, as well as interest groups.

The document slams recent trade agreements, as would be expected given that Senator Sanders has voted against all of the major agreements that came before the House and Senate during his political tenure. I suspect that the underlying issue is opposition to trade liberalization, not any specific agreement.

While there is little doubt that some U.S. sectors or industries benefit from trade liberalization and others are harmed, that’s largely a function of comparative advantages. The U.S. is not world-class in every sector or industry. The economic literature contains no examples of a country that had comparative advantages in all industries and sectors at any point in time since economies have been examined. The better test is whether a country is better off as a whole or worse off as a whole from trade agreements.

When it comes to NAFTA for example, the U.S. enjoyed neutral to modest net benefits. From the NBER:

We find that Mexico's welfare increases by 1.31%, U.S.'s welfare increases by 0.08%, and Canada's welfare declines by 0.06%. We find that intra-bloc trade increases by 118% for Mexico, 11% for Canada and 41% for the U.S. W ( Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA).

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted between April 26-30, 2015 showed American public opinion reflects the empirical data concerning NAFTA. In that poll, 29% said that NAFTA had a positive impact, 26% a negative impact, and 32% not much of an impact. On the broader issue of whether trade liberalization has helped or hurt the U.S., 37% of respondents said it helped, 31% said it hurt, and 25% said it had not made much of a difference.

The document states, “If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.” As noted previously, there is no agreement yet. Negotiations remain underway. Some general principles have been discussed. Once there is an agreement, it will go before the Congress and the legislation containing the deal will be made public.

With respect to the 8th point, there’s a big difference from barring capital controls during normal circumstances and during all circumstances. Even on that point, the evidence that such controls are effective during foreign currency runs is somewhat mixed, though there have been some successes e.g., Malaysia during the Asian Financial Crisis. As the agreement has not been concluded and there is no available language on that issue, there’s not much I can say other than that one will need to wait until an agreement occurs and the language is released. But in principle, barring such controls during normal circumstances would not be bad practice. Barring them during crises would reduce some flexibility of states to respond to such crises.

In the end, Sanders has taken a notably different position on trade policy and trade liberalization that Clinton appears to hold.
 
With respect to the linked document:

The document states that the “Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement…” As noted previously, no agreement has been reached at this point in time. There currently is no Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The document notes, “The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world.” Aside from the fact that the text of the agreement is being negotiated, if he wants to express concern about corporate input, that’s a process issue. Obviously the myriad parties who could be impacted will have input. That includes companies, as well as interest groups.

The document slams recent trade agreements, as would be expected given that Senator Sanders has voted against all of the major agreements that came before the House and Senate during his political tenure. I suspect that the underlying issue is opposition to trade liberalization, not any specific agreement.

While there is little doubt that some U.S. sectors or industries benefit from trade liberalization and others are harmed, that’s largely a function of comparative advantages. The U.S. is not world-class in every sector or industry. The economic literature contains no examples of a country that had comparative advantages in all industries and sectors at any point in time since economies have been examined. The better test is whether a country is better off as a whole or worse off as a whole from trade agreements.

When it comes to NAFTA for example, the U.S. enjoyed neutral to modest net benefits. From the NBER:

We find that Mexico's welfare increases by 1.31%, U.S.'s welfare increases by 0.08%, and Canada's welfare declines by 0.06%. We find that intra-bloc trade increases by 118% for Mexico, 11% for Canada and 41% for the U.S. W ( Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA).

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll conducted between April 26-30, 2015 showed American public opinion reflects the empirical data concerning NAFTA. In that poll, 29% said that NAFTA had a positive impact, 26% a negative impact, and 32% not much of an impact. On the broader issue of whether trade liberalization has helped or hurt the U.S., 37% of respondents said it helped, 31% said it hurt, and 25% said it had not made much of a difference.

The document states, “If TPP was such a good deal for America, the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of keeping the content of the TPP a secret.” As noted previously, there is no agreement yet. Negotiations remain underway. Some general principles have been discussed. Once there is an agreement, it will go before the Congress and the legislation containing the deal will be made public.

With respect to the 8th point, there’s a big difference from barring capital controls during normal circumstances and during all circumstances. Even on that point, the evidence that such controls are effective during foreign currency runs is somewhat mixed, though there have been some successes e.g., Malaysia during the Asian Financial Crisis. As the agreement has not been concluded and there is no available language on that issue, there’s not much I can say other than that one will need to wait until an agreement occurs and the language is released. But in principle, barring such controls during normal circumstances would not be bad practice. Barring them during crises would reduce some flexibility of states to respond to such crises.

In the end, Sanders has taken a notably different position on trade policy and trade liberalization that Clinton appears to hold.

Come on Don, you tend to be a straight shooter. 85% of the folks comprising the 28 negotiating committees are corporate executives and industry lobbyists! Furthermore, republicans "trust" Obama on nothing, NOTHING!!! Yet suddenly they're prepared to give him "decider" powers when it comes to this trade deal. Its very confusing to me that you don't smell the rotten fish that so many others do. Furthermore, you keep pointing out that there is no deal, yet. Why then are you so supportive of a deal that hasn't even been made?
 
Back
Top Bottom