Liberal came from the idea of liberal trade. Neoliberalism is unfettered capitalism and unfettered

[applegrove]

trade where they laws are written by the right, and the left protests and self-excuses themselves from the discussion by protest. Trade laws can be anything you want them to be. They could be having union representation on boards of directors like they have in germany. They could be sophisticated financial regulation like what the Governor of the Bank of England was working on with his colleagues before Brexit. Trade creates wealth. It creates winners and losers. Then you tax it properly so that the losers in free trade have support and opportunity. Business does not get it all. These are liberal ideas just like free trade is. Neoliberalism is millenium type trade with 19th century regulations (no regulations and a boom bust existance).

[Buzz cook]

1. The problem is in the labeling.

We got sold a bill of goods with the label free trade and unfortunately we're stuck with it. I think it is too late to rehabilitate the phrase.

One of the main problems I have with many of our trade deals is that they are sold as some variation of Ricardian Advantage. That we give up jobs in one sector and then invest in another sector, creating jobs to replace the ones we've given up. Unfortunately we never seem to make the promised investment in jobs and infrastructure that was promised.

[applegrove]

2. That should have been the deal upfront. That should have been baked into the deals when they were

signed. Somehow the right managed to convince the left to stay completely on the outside. Then the right took it all. Now people like Paul Krugman say that there are winners and losers from freer trade. I think Hillary will expand on that idea with what the deal between the right and left is on trade and the economy should really be.