Democratic International Trade Platform
February 19th 2010 18:08
I previously reviewed the Republican's stance on international trade here. Today, I will look over the Democrat's platform:
There is nothing too off-base here in the introduction. If the Democrats mean “free trade” when they use the term trade, then it will strengthen the American economy. Trade does not create jobs on net, but it does lead to better jobs. As for the different foundations that the Democrats would like to lay, these will be a natural byproduct of open trade, but not something that needs to be focused on by itself.
If it is true that open markets favor the few over the many, then a case for some redistribution could be a defensible argument. I doubt that one could make a compelling case, however, that open markets have actually helped the few over the many. Again, free trade will lead to good jobs at home and more prosperity abroad. So far, the Democrats are making trade policy seem more complicated than it needs to be to capitalize on the benefits. They could have trimmed down the first paragraphs to “We are going to have free trade, with some redistribution, and a lot of good things domestically and internationally will happen.”
Now we see what the Democrats actually mean by “trade,” and it’s not “free.” Some of the unfair trade practices the Democrats mention are beneficial to U.S. consumers (i.e. subsidies, currency manipulation) and others are not really unfair but rather a necessity for poor countries (workers’ rights and environmental standards). Ignoring the comment about government subsidies in the final sentence, the use of the WTO to bring down non-tariff barriers around the world is a legitimate goal.
Do Democrats ever make a statement without including the phrase “not just for Wall Street, but also for Main Street"? The fact is that free trade benefits Main Street quite a bit. It brings down prices and provides higher-paying jobs. “Wall Street,” on the other hand, has to deal with foreign competition. International labor and environmental standards are just a way to place higher costs on poor countries that could compete with products made by United States labor unions.
NAFTA seems to work just fine for everyone involved. Completing the Doha round would be a tremendous success for the world economy, but protection of farmers in the European Union and the United States is the main stumbling block to that happening.
Okay? So we will not have sweatshops in America... what century was this written in? I think they are trying to say compete WITH sweatshops, but that is not really what that sentence is saying. Moving on...
It is funny how Democrats and Republicans never actually mention what tax breaks they are even referring to when they talk of Americans moving jobs overseas. Why can’t American companies have more jobs here AND more jobs overseas, like they actually do? And again they digress here, talking about health insurance and retirement security.
Overall, the Democrats platform focuses more on workers' rights than the neoconservatism of the Republican platform, but both promote American exporters and producers above the consumer.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
We believe that trade should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs, while also laying a foundation for democratic, equitable, and sustainable growth around the world.
There is nothing too off-base here in the introduction. If the Democrats mean “free trade” when they use the term trade, then it will strengthen the American economy. Trade does not create jobs on net, but it does lead to better jobs. As for the different foundations that the Democrats would like to lay, these will be a natural byproduct of open trade, but not something that needs to be focused on by itself.
Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development, but we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few rather than the many. We must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade policy must be an integral part of an overall national economic strategy that delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad.
If it is true that open markets favor the few over the many, then a case for some redistribution could be a defensible argument. I doubt that one could make a compelling case, however, that open markets have actually helped the few over the many. Again, free trade will lead to good jobs at home and more prosperity abroad. So far, the Democrats are making trade policy seem more complicated than it needs to be to capitalize on the benefits. They could have trimmed down the first paragraphs to “We are going to have free trade, with some redistribution, and a lot of good things domestically and internationally will happen.”
We will enforce trade laws and safeguard our workers, businesses, and farmers from unfair trade practices–including currency manipulation, lax consumer standards, illegal subsidies, and violations of workers’ rights and environmental standards. We must also show leadership at the World Trade Organization to improve transparency and accountability, and to ensure it acts effectively to stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports.
Now we see what the Democrats actually mean by “trade,” and it’s not “free.” Some of the unfair trade practices the Democrats mention are beneficial to U.S. consumers (i.e. subsidies, currency manipulation) and others are not really unfair but rather a necessity for poor countries (workers’ rights and environmental standards). Ignoring the comment about government subsidies in the final sentence, the use of the WTO to bring down non-tariff barriers around the world is a legitimate goal.
We need tougher negotiators on our side of the table–to strike bargains that are good not just for Wall Street, but also for Main Street. We will negotiate bilateral trade agreements that open markets to U.S. exports and include enforceable international labor and environmental standards; we pledge to enforce those standards consistently and fairly. We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications. We will stand firm against bilateral agreements that fail to live up to these important benchmarks, and will strive to achieve them in the multilateral framework.
Do Democrats ever make a statement without including the phrase “not just for Wall Street, but also for Main Street"? The fact is that free trade benefits Main Street quite a bit. It brings down prices and provides higher-paying jobs. “Wall Street,” on the other hand, has to deal with foreign competition. International labor and environmental standards are just a way to place higher costs on poor countries that could compete with products made by United States labor unions.
We will work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three North American countries. We will work together with other countries to achieve a successful completion of the Doha Round Agreement that would increase U.S. exports, support good jobs in America, protect worker rights and the environment, benefit our businesses and our farms, strengthen the rules-based multilateral system, and advance development of the world’s poorest countries.
NAFTA seems to work just fine for everyone involved. Completing the Doha round would be a tremendous success for the world economy, but protection of farmers in the European Union and the United States is the main stumbling block to that happening.
Just as important, we will invest in a world-class infrastructure, skilled workforce, and cutting-edge technology so that we can compete successfully on high-value-added products, not sweatshop wages and conditions.
Okay? So we will not have sweatshops in America... what century was this written in? I think they are trying to say compete WITH sweatshops, but that is not really what that sentence is saying. Moving on...
We will end tax breaks for companies that ship American jobs overseas, and provide incentives for companies that keep and maintain good jobs here in the United States. We will also provide access to affordable health insurance and enhance retirement security, and we will update and expand Trade Adjustment Assistance to help workers in industries vulnerable to international competition, as well as service sector and public sector workers impacted by trade, and we will improve TAA’s health care benefits. The United States should renew its own commitment to respect for workers’ fundamental human rights, and at the same time strengthen the ILO’s ability to promote workers’ rights abroad through technical assistance and capacity building.
It is funny how Democrats and Republicans never actually mention what tax breaks they are even referring to when they talk of Americans moving jobs overseas. Why can’t American companies have more jobs here AND more jobs overseas, like they actually do? And again they digress here, talking about health insurance and retirement security.
Overall, the Democrats platform focuses more on workers' rights than the neoconservatism of the Republican platform, but both promote American exporters and producers above the consumer.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
| 18 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog













