• 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!

The Future of Free Trade and Globalization in a post-TPP world.

Surrealistik said:
Free trade is fine... so long as the agreement:

A: Has transparent trade dispute resolution rather than opaque, closed tribunals, with a panel of democratically appointed judges from each signatory country.
B: Has a negotiation process that's at a bare minimum at least as transparent to senior, federal level politicians and legislators (Senators, Congressmen) as it is to CEOs and other corporate executives, including rights to consultation, interpretation and advice.
C: Has a negotiation process whose fundamentals and content, if not particulars, are generally transparent to the public; the greatest stakeholder of all.
D: Is co-implemented with robust social assistance and domestic spending that will treat its victims to education, training for continued employment, and financial support; every trade agreement has losers, and these days, those losers are predominantly found in manufacturing, and essentially any position that can be readily outsourced or work visaed.
E: Does not permit for the export of draconian and oppressive IP laws that can be abused to foment oligopolies, chilling effects and otherwise unduly destroy market competition.
Click to expand...

WTO dispute procedures are transparent, although it also emphasizes settling out of court. So, there's that.

Negotiations on trade agreements can't always be transparent. The results, on the other hand, are transparent.

International management of IP laws are largely taken care of, with the Uruguay Round. That treaty doesn't result in the "export" of "oppressive" laws; what it does is extend that own nation's IP laws to foreign copyrighted material, and sets some minimums.

Social assistance and training is beneficial. However, that's a bit easier said than done, and fairly complex.

One issue is that no matter what, job losses will always have a bigger impact than job gains. E.g. if outsourcing jobs to Mexico results in the firing of 1,000 US workers, training those workers for new jobs doesn't always balm the wound of the job losses.

Another is that it doesn't magically create jobs where they were lost. E.g. if you train 1000 Iowans as computer programmers and graphic designers, that doesn't bring the jobs into Creston. Those ex-factory workers will also have... unconventional resumes.

And of course, good luck convincing conservatives to spend on social programs to soothe the wounds inflicted by capitalistic free trade in the first place.


The bigger issue is that protectionism basically doesn't work, and sabotages itself in numerous ways. Foreign nations will retaliate, formally and informally. Tactics like tariffs are potentially self-defeating, as it results in less domestic currency going abroad, which in turn strengthens the currency and its buying power, and in a year or so imports are right back to the level they were at before; border taxes and tariffs increase costs for consumers and hurt retailers (a huge source of employment) without reducing the costs for US producers; it encourages further automation, which again costs US jobs.

We can try to extract concessions, and free trade does benefit from neutral arbitrators. But it's hard to impose requirements for domestic social correctives.
 
Visbek said:
WTO dispute procedures are transparent, although it also emphasizes settling out of court. So, there's that.

Negotiations on trade agreements can't always be transparent. The results, on the other hand, are transparent.

International management of IP laws are largely taken care of, with the Uruguay Round. That treaty doesn't result in the "export" of "oppressive" laws; what it does is extend that own nation's IP laws to foreign copyrighted material, and sets some minimums.

Social assistance and training is beneficial. However, that's a bit easier said than done, and fairly complex.

One issue is that no matter what, job losses will always have a bigger impact than job gains. E.g. if outsourcing jobs to Mexico results in the firing of 1,000 US workers, training those workers for new jobs doesn't always balm the wound of the job losses.

Another is that it doesn't magically create jobs where they were lost. E.g. if you train 1000 Iowans as computer programmers and graphic designers, that doesn't bring the jobs into Creston. Those ex-factory workers will also have... unconventional resumes.

And of course, good luck convincing conservatives to spend on social programs to soothe the wounds inflicted by capitalistic free trade in the first place.


The bigger issue is that protectionism basically doesn't work, and sabotages itself in numerous ways. Foreign nations will retaliate, formally and informally. Tactics like tariffs are potentially self-defeating, as it results in less domestic currency going abroad, which in turn strengthens the currency and its buying power, and in a year or so imports are right back to the level they were at before; border taxes and tariffs increase costs for consumers and hurt retailers (a huge source of employment) without reducing the costs for US producers; it encourages further automation, which again costs US jobs.

We can try to extract concessions, and free trade does benefit from neutral arbitrators. But it's hard to impose requirements for domestic social correctives.
Click to expand...

Bottomline, I don't believe in free trade if it's not built on the proper foundation, or precludes the proper implementation; it has to fully consider the impact on the people of constituent countries and must be careful to rigorously uphold a fair, transparent and unbiased means of dispute settlement that puts the burden of proof on corporations to show intent to erect trade barriers rather than defend the public interest (say in the case of health/pollution motivated legislation), such that sovereignty, outside of erecting trade barriers (the general purview of free trade agreements), is not imposed upon.

Further, if a society can't/won't implement internal corrective measures to deal with its fallout (whether or not they'll undo all the damage, which no one is expecting), and those who lose from it, it has no business passing such agreements, conservative recalcitrance or not (which is generally problematic only outside of Europe/the Commonwealth), nor can it forge such agreements in environments where stakeholders like corporations have priority access over top civil servants and representatives, and they are largely or comparatively shut out from the negotiation process. I understand that not everything can be transparent, but there are levels of opacity that are simply unacceptable.

The TPP was riddled with problems and questions pertaining to arbitration, questions of sovereignty, IP and transparency, so while I could not agree with that specifically, I'd be much more amenable to something that reflected the above.
 
Visbek said:
So you still can't explain your reasoning. Not as fascinating this time. Sorry.
Click to expand...

I put the best interests of my country before any other nation and you want an explaination why?

I would think even a liberal like you would want whats best for your country.

But maybe you don't
 
AliHajiSheik said:
From your statement: " Free trade is the best instrument to achieve the highest general welfare." What is the scope of your statement. The US, or all countries? If all countries, why is that the concern of the US government?
Click to expand...

Trade theory shows that any barrier to free trade will reduce the general welfare of both countries between whom the trade it restricted. This does not mean that it will impact every individual equally.
 
Mac77 said:
There is more than one cause for the chronic trade deficit we have with emerging nations like china

But low wages burdensome government regulation cost American workers their jobs whether china manipulates its currency or not

I think one of the reasons liberals who tend to be greenies also look the other way when it comes to the trade imbalance is that they prefer the factories to be far away from their doorstep

But that only works when it is some other American in the unemployment line rather than them
Click to expand...

Oh, yes! You are quite right. The problem is not mono-causal. But that does not make it more true that free trade is bad.
 
Mac77 said:
I put the best interests of my country before any other nation and you want an explaination why?
Click to expand...
Yup.

One way to put it is: Why do you value the life of a random stranger who happens to be American, more than the life of a random stranger who happens to be Mexican?

Why should I care more about a farmer from Iowa than one from Oaxaca?
 
joG said:
Oh, yes! You are quite right. The problem is not mono-causal. But that does not make it more true that free trade is bad.
Click to expand...

Free trade with countries that have similar wages, costs of government regulations and living standards is ok.

Canada, japan, the EU for example

Free trade with countries like china is not good
 
Visbek said:
Yup.

One way to put it is: Why do you value the life of a random stranger who happens to be American, more than the life of a random stranger who happens to be Mexican?

Why should I care more about a farmer from Iowa than one from Oaxaca?
Click to expand...

Because Americans are more important to me than mexicans
 
Mac77 said:
Because Americans are more important to me than mexicans
Click to expand...

And Guamanians and Puerto Ricans are only slightly, just a smidge, more important than Mexicans. Definitely not as important as Americans.
 
Winston said:
And Guamanians and Puerto Ricans are only slightly, just a smidge, more important than Mexicans. Definitely not as important as Americans.
Click to expand...

I had not thought of them recently but they are US citizens which gives them a BIG leg up on the Mexicans
 
Mac77 said:
Free trade with countries that have similar wages, costs of government regulations and living standards is ok.

Canada, japan, the EU for example

Free trade with countries like china is not good
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Free trade with similar countries increase the general welfare in all participating countries. What is remarkable is that the opportunity costs improvement and therefore increase in general welfare is larger in countries that are different. Unless, of course, the society cannot handle it.
 
Mac77 said:
Free trade with countries that have similar wages, costs of government regulations and living standards is ok.

Canada, japan, the EU for example

Free trade with countries like china is not good
Click to expand...


“Most favored nation”

Mac77 & Jog, I’m pleased to the extent that written laws govern that USA rather than individuals’ ad hoc determinations; (i.e.) we’re a nation of laws not peoples. “Flying by the seat of our pants” rather than following some previously planned policy is generally not the best practices for individuals and often been disastrous for larger organizations where the stakes are much higher.
USA should follow predetermined general economic policies regarding upon what circumstances we permit what products be permitted to enter our nation.

I’m a proponent of well drafted economic policies that do not particularly discriminate among foreign nations, or particularly among any nations’ industries, enterprises, or types of goods. I’m opposed to an economic policy based upon individual nations’ wage rates.

I’m a proponent of unilateral trade policy. Entry of products into the USA should not be a matter for international negotiations.

I’m an advocate of the “most favored nation” concept. If it isn’t explicitly included, it’s certainly implied within every USA international agreement that makes mention of global trade.
The clause doesn’t prohibit nations from favoring their own entities but it does prohibit nations from granting considerations to any other than their own nation, that are denied to any of the agreement’s other participating nations. It also requires that the mutually agreeing nations publish timely notice of any changes they intend to enact that materially affects global trade among them.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
I'm Supposn said:
“Most favored nation”

Mac77 & Jog, I’m pleased to the extent that written laws govern that USA rather than individuals’ ad hoc determinations; (i.e.) we’re a nation of laws not peoples. “Flying by the seat of our pants” rather than following some previously planned policy is generally not the best practices for individuals and often been disastrous for larger organizations where the stakes are much higher.
USA should follow predetermined general economic policies regarding upon what circumstances we permit what products be permitted to enter our nation.

I’m a proponent of well drafted economic policies that do not particularly discriminate among foreign nations, or particularly among any nations’ industries, enterprises, or types of goods. I’m opposed to an economic policy based upon individual nations’ wage rates.

I’m a proponent of unilateral trade policy. Entry of products into the USA should not be a matter for international negotiations.

I’m an advocate of the “most favored nation” concept. If it isn’t explicitly included, it’s certainly implied within every USA international agreement that makes mention of global trade.
The clause doesn’t prohibit nations from favoring their own entities but it does prohibit nations from granting considerations to any other than their own nation, that are denied to any of the agreement’s other participating nations. It also requires that the mutually agreeing nations publish timely notice of any changes they intend to enact that materially affects global trade among them.

Respectfully, Supposn
Click to expand...

I'm an advocate of trade policies that do not disadvantage American workers and help our advisaries grow stronger

In most cases that means china
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom