It’s never hard to figure out what side the media are on when it comes to corporate-friendly “free trade” deals. They’re for them,because they’re “free,” and people whooppose themapparentlyprefer protectionism over freedom.
So Barack Obama’s apparent failure tonegotiate a trade deal with South Korea is bad news–thoughit’s hard to read the papers and figure out why.The Washington Post (11/12/10) explained that
although the list of outstanding issues was short and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied heavily for the agreement, key labor and auto interests and their allies in Congress demanded a fuller opening of South Korea’s market.
That wouldseem to bea reference to the fact that South Korea limits certain U.S. imports. Perhaps they have good reasons for this, but if these things are to be called “free” trade deals, then it would seem that the U.S. critics–the ones usually deemed anti-free trade–are demanding more freedom to sell U.S.-made goods in Korea.
Near the end of the piece, we’re told:
Obama had hoped to use a completed South Korea deal to place the issue of free trade squarely on the U.S. agenda, over objections from protectionist voices that are loudest within his own party.
But then:
U.S. opponents of the South Korea pact, including lawmakers representing districts involved in the auto industry, complimented Obama for insisting on more concrete steps to ensure that South Korea would import more U.S. autos into a market dominated by local favorites Hyundai and Kia.
I’m confused. “Protectionists” who oppose “free” trade arepushing for South Korea to allow more U.S. imports–i.e., more trade “freedom”?
You get the sense that reporters know what names to call things–all trade deals are “free,” and some Democrats and unions are anti-“free” trade protectionists–but they can’t really explain how those labels correspond to reality.
The New York Times story (11/12/10)on this is similarly unhelpful; it refers to the party’s positions like this:
with Republicans, who are more favorable toward free trade, controlling the House, Mr. Obama will still have to deal with a Democratic Senate, as well as a Republican Tea Party caucus whose members might be hostile to working with him and who are skeptical of trade deals.
Republicans are free traders, Democrats (and Tea Partiers) are “skeptical of trade deals.” Again, thoselabels aren’t very useful, especially when reporting suggeststhatopposing certain parts of certain trade deals amounts toopposing tradeitself:
But trade is a tough sell at home. A survey released Wednesday by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found substantial skepticism about trade deals.
The poll found that 35 percent of adults said that free-trade agreements had been good for the United States, while 44 percent said they had been bad. Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who agreed with the Tea Party movement had a particularly negative view.
“Trade” and “free trade deals” like NAFTA are not the same thing.
To make matters even more confusing, we’re told later that in Washington,”trade is an issue that cuts more along regional than party lines.”
If this doesn’t make sense, go read Dean Baker’s critique of the Washington Post. It won’t help you understand the paper’s reporting, but it will help you appreciate which side they’re on.
Free trade, as currently defined by the powers that be, doesn’t benefit individual U.S. citizens or corporate persons. I think “free trade” should mean a 50 – 50 balance of payments and equal protection (ism) under any agreement. We may not want to deal with the pollution of foundries and smelters, but why not recycle previously refined metal here instead of shipping it overseas?
Individual citizens and corporate persons can chose to buy american made products when available. If a product is made for sale in the U.S., taxes on the profit from sales should be paid to the U.S.
Currently, China and Korea have policies which harm U.S. interests. We should exercise our “free trade” choices in a way that benefits us.
Just wait (but don’t hold your breath) till one of the MSM celebrities removes their corporate blinders and takes a look at the ACTA negotiations!
The problem is not Obama’s intelligence, or his hope for an advantageous and profitable agreement with other countries.It is the nagging suspicion that he dances to his bases tune(unions)in deference to what would benefit the country as a whole.I think that worry has a basis in fact.
“The problem is not Obama’s intelligence, or his hope for an advantageous and profitable agreement with other countries.It is the nagging suspicion that he dances to his bases tune(unions)in deference to what would benefit the country as a whole.I think that worry has a basis in fact.”
Exactly as much basis as the nagging suspicion that he plans to blow up the moon and destroy the Farm Belt with a rain of green cheese meteors.
I think we all covered the Free/Fair trade on another similar blog this week. I think maybe the importance of this blog is the fact that many, if not most journalists don’t really know the difference “You get the sense that reporters know what names to call things–all trade deals are “free,” and some Democrats and unions are anti-“free” trade protectionists–but they can’t really explain how those labels correspond to reality. I’d have to guess that it must have something to do with the fact that most journalists still employed have enough money to take advantage of the great deals afforded by “Free Trade” (importing cheap shit from overseas) without recognizing that these same countries employ “Fair Trade” “Protectionist” “Tarrifs” to prevent having to compete with the countries they are shipping to. Forget for a moment that they don’t really “compete” with us as their wage level and environmental protections are still somewhat behind ours, they do it anyway, and we don’t. The journalists don’t appear to make the connection. The tea party may well have run on some notion of “Fair Trade” (Like “America good except for the liburals and Science, the rest of the world can go to hell) but you have already seen how fast the new congress is backpedalling on that one. That’s OK, their minions can and will still be steadfast, unlike the Progressives who actually believe in returning to an America with “equal justice for all” and are about to revolt as at least I’m beginning to think “really bad” legislation will bring the change we seek quicker than merely “bad” legislation.
Don’t disagree with you on a lot of this this Dave except for your view on the tea party, and their views on international trade imbalance..They are pretty pragmatic.You should look into that a bit more.You are misrepresenting their views.
What does equal justice for all mean in a business world sense?Does it mean promise of parity?Or a promise the government will try its best not to hamper business so that people are free to compete?