What Does Donald Trump Actually Intend to Do About Trade?

[portlander23]

What Does Donald Trump Actually Intend to Do About Trade?
Dean Baker
Truthout

Trump is correct in identifying trade as a force that has caused enormous economic damage to millions of people in these states, but he is wrong that the problem was "stupid" negotiators. The vast majority of people who have been given the responsibility for negotiating trade deals are smart, ambitious and hard-working.

The large trade deficits we have been running in the last two decades are not due to negotiators. We run large trade deficits because securing manufacturing jobs in the United States has not been a priority for our negotiators.

When our trade negotiators sit down with Mexico, China and other trading partners, they have a long list of items on their agenda. For example, they want longer and stronger patent protection for our drugs and copyright protection for Microsoft's software. They also want better market access for our financial, telecommunications and retail industries. Our trade negotiators have been quite successful in these areas.

Furthermore, the trade deficit is not a bad thing for everyone in the United States. Many of the items that we import from Mexico, China and other developing countries were actually produced by US companies. They wanted to take advantage of low cost labor to get an edge on their domestic competition. Similarly, Walmart and other major retailers are happy to have low-cost suppliers in the developing world.

However, it is not clear that Trump plans to pursue a trade policy focused on getting back manufacturing jobs. While he railed about currency "manipulation" in the election campaign, he also complained that other countries didn't grant our companies adequate market access or respect the patents and copyrights of US companies.

These are conflicting agendas, and it remains to be seen whether Trump pursues a trade agenda that will increase manufacturing jobs, or one that will further enrich corporate America. With the top two economic posts in the Trump administration going to Goldman Sachs alums, the money is betting on the corporate agenda.

Yep.

[RDANGELO]

1. During the campaign, he talked about raising tariffs 35%

If he did that all at once, it would probably cause a world wide recession. Recently he mentioned raising them 5%, but he has a Republican congress where most of them are free traders. According to the constitution, the power of regulating tariffs rests with the legislature. This is going to be interesting.

[onecaliberal]

2. Nothing because the republican congress will never allow it

[Cosmocat]

5. THIS

as any dolt who managed to get past 6th grade civics class should have known.

[Hoyt]

3. Trade is not as simple as the article tries to make it. The tariffs Trump talked about could set

off a trade war where we will be the loser. Plus, who is going to tell Americans they get to pay a lot more for goods -- either from tariffs or higher cost of products made here. Who is going to tell the rest of the world "screw you." Same for the millions of workers whose jobs depend on foreign trade.

I'm fine with pointing out that Trump can't fulfill one of his promises and that the ignorant white wingers who voted for him have been conned.

[eniwetok]

7. Right wing meme....

Who's going to tell the workers and communities devastated by free trade that, ya, it was a mistake... but f*ck you all, we're not changing anything.

[Hoyt]

8. There's really no way to change it unless you think we will be better off trading among ourselves.

[eniwetok]

9. that's not our history

In the day's before the income tax, tariffs made up a huge share of government revenue. Protective tariffs are what built this nation by protecting domestic industry. This goes back to Hamilton's 1791 Report on the Subject of Manufactures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Report_on_Manufactures

I don't mind trade as long as it's not used to undercut the overhead we place on domestic industry... wage & hour laws, disability, UI, holidays, SS and Medicare, pollution controls, safe product laws, worker safety laws etc.

Obviously there needs to be trade with other nations, but there needs to be some mechanism to compensate for the difference in overhead. Otherwise free trade is the escape hatch corporations use to escape those costs... yet can still sell their goods in a high profit market..

[Hoyt]

10. The world is very different now. We have competent competitors who can do much of what we do.

They can do it at lower cost AND it helps their workers progress (maybe not to our standards yet, but a farmer making 50 cents a day scratching out a living in a rice paddy has the option of going to work in factory making much more than that a day).

I'm fine with increasing taxes and incentives/penalties to encourage jobs to stay here. But, simple, repetitive, non-skilled jobs are not going to help our economy. People need to get an education for tomorrows jobs, not stay stuck in yesterdays jobs like coal mining, oil, simple manufacturing that the Japanese and Chinese did better 60 years ago.

Maybe Trump will give you a chance to see how well tariffs work to our economy's benefit.

[eniwetok]

11. so we sacrifice US workers for foreign farmers

I know the argument, but what you're saying is we have some moral obligation to sacrifice US wages and communities for foreign farmers... but somehow the corporate owners sacrifice nothing.

AGAIN, you're pushing right wing/neolib memes. And who are you to sell those with low tech jobs down the river?

[Hoyt]

12. I'm sorry, I am not a Nationalist, America First type when it comes to sharing the world's wealth.

We've taken more than our fair share for well over 50 years.

[eniwetok]

13. you're avoiding the question of who makes the sacrifice

Sure, we consume too much and we have installed despicable governments that let us steal the resources of many nations. Then there's the matter of wasted intellectual potential of undeveloped nations.

But who in the US makes those economic sacrifices when US most of the benefits of the US economy have been going to the top? Your suggestion really makes US workers pay twice.

[Hoyt]

14. Most people in this country are the world's 10%ers. I'm for helping those who aren't.

Again, I'm not a Nationalist or America Firster. Trump and his supporters are, and there are some Democrats, as well. I don't think that is good for world, or us, long-term.

[eniwetok]

15. OK, you're making the moral case... that right wingers often make

But again, who in the US makes the sacrifice when our manufacturing jobs... both low and high end are exported? We KNOW it's not those who own the factories.

And where is it in US law that our government is responsible for other nations?

[Hoyt]

16. Well, you are making the argument that Trump supporters make. We live in a big world, so yeah

we are somewhat responsible for others, as they are us.

[eniwetok]

17. If they are... they stole the argument from...

If some Trump supporters are now making the protectionist then stole it Hamilton, US unions, the pro-labor Dems.

So just because some right winger caught on to a traditional liberal Dem idea... that makes the idea wrong? Or are those right wingers finally catching on?

Of course some of these Trump supporters might just be disaffected Dems who have had free trade steal their livelihoods... and they're pissed off at corporate Dems. I think they'll soon catch on that Trump doesn't give a shit about workers.

You're still not telling us who in the US will make the sacrifices if you had your way... and I have to guess US workers otherwise you'd be more than happy to share your approach.

[Hoyt]

18. Almost everyone here will make the sacrifice for trade wars, isolationism, etc. Those hurt worst,

will sadly be the less fortunate now.

[eniwetok]

19. you're moving the goal post....

You've moved the goal post from who in the US should sacrifice for your moral goal of giving US jobs to foreign nations so they can develop.... to who will lose out if there's a trade war... something we'd not have to fear if we didn't enter into these insane trade deals.

[Hoyt]

20. I get that you could care less about people in foreign countries. Fact is, if we don't trade

Last edited Tue Jan 3, 2017, 01:35 AM - Edit history (1)

globally, those here will suffer and many more will become poor.

If Trump imposes tariffs, and tells foreign countries to screw themselves, you'll see how your plan works.

[eniwetok]

22. you're still moving the goal post.

As for "plans" how well has your plan to export US jobs worked for the US?

I know how it's hurt my old home town when a company left for Mexico with 1000 jobs... and how the town invested in an industrial park around '92 only to find no one bothered to set up shop there after NAFTA. And I know one of my best friends who's now worked at THREE factories that have gone under or moved... and now at age 64 the best he can do as doing industrial QC is $10.70 an hour. Oops... the MW in Mass just went up. So he'll now have to make at least $11. $11 IS THE 1968 MINIMUM WAGE ADJUSTED TO INFLATION.

Don't tell me about the glories or nobility of free trade.

[Hoyt]

28. Sadly, small towns don't have much future if you want more than they have to offer.

Trump is not going to change that, sorry.

[eniwetok]

31. where did I ever say Trump would change anything?

I'm of the opinion Trump will screw US workers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028390642

But then so do you.

[eniwetok]

33. I never said I came from a small town

It has a population of over 50k. All the manufacturing I remember even into the 80 and 90's are gone and with it about 4000k jobs... the last one left for Mexico about 6 years ago.

But then you seem to care more about Mexican workers and US corporate owners than what's been happening to what you seem to believe are spoiled rotten blue collar workers and the communities they live in.

[eniwetok]

32. I don't have a plan

I have some principles how I believe we should conduct trade to protect domestic workers and industry. But I'm also on record below that free trade is a trap that we were stupid to fall into because it will be difficult to untangle.

As for other nations... I never said I don't care about them. I'm on record that I do but unlike you I don't see amoral and exploitative corporations as being their saviors. But obviously in your book if they're willing to be exploited, then exploiting them is fair game. AGAIN, this is a right wing meme.

So pray tell, how did your plan work out with China? Yup, the communist government was more than willing to let its labor force be exploited. It exacted technology transfers from US companies and got new equipment where US based companies didn't. And now China may soon become a strategic American foe.

As for your amusing claim " Fact is, if we don't trade globally, those here will suffer and many more will become poor."

I'm retirement age and seem to recall that the US did pretty well BEFORE free trade. Free trade as part of the right's war on labor, undercut labor's power and that is one of the big reasons all the economic gains are going to the top. Insecure workers don't ask for raises... here OR overseas.

So once again... the corporate owners aren't making the sacrifices. But then you probably think to the "job creators" go the spoils.

[eniwetok]

21. on nationalism

So in your mind, if someone is against free trade, they must be a nationalist. I could not disagree more. Somehow we foolishly created amoral entities called corporations which if left unregulated can become exploitative if not sociopathic. Much of the social progress of last century was to civilize the amoral corporate form... and to tax those who benefit from the gift of incorporation. For the first time the US government gave labor the protections to level the playing field. The far right has always been trying to restore the old order... and free trade was central to destroy the US labor movement.

I'm for keeping amoral capitalism on a chokechain to protect not just US workers from exploitation, but other nations as well. You really need to reconsider your view that amoral capitalism will be some savior of the third world. As soon as workers refuse to be exploited, capitalists will just move on to the next nation that is willing to let its workforce and environment be exploited.

[Hoyt]

29. Do you work for a corporation? You and a couple of friends can start

a business tomorrow. You can pay high wages, offer best medical care, education, more time off than normal, etc. I would prefer our corporations worked in partnership with government as in some Scandinavian countries. But it's not there yet here. But, go ahead and form a Costco or something if you think it is so easy. Until then, don't screw up other peoples' future thinking vast global trade is not necessary to provide people here decent income, education, health care, etc., long-term.

[eniwetok]

30. more of your goal post moving...

Is that your main debating tactic... to keep moving the goal post? We're discussing nationalism... and instead of staying on topic you jump to something else. It's a classic sign of someone with an agenda who's going to hold an opinion regardless if their rationale for it hold up.

It should be obvious that not all corporate forms are the same... that some NATIONS put their corporations on a tighter leash than we do in the US. We're not the EU that provides for internal free trade but has internal transfers of wealth. Your idea of free trade is to allow rat eat rat competition pitting US workers and corporations who want to stay in the US against foreign workers and manufacturers. Wow!

We The People provide plenty of freebies to capital from free intellectual property monopolies like patents, copyrights, and trademarks to free limited liability protections to corporate owners which arguably should be purchased on the private market as insurance. Government did not try and level the playing field with labor protections until the 30s. Much of the social progress of the 20th century has been to civilize the amoral corporate form we created. You make it seem as if corporations were handed down on a slab and are our saviors. AGAIN... you're pushing a right wing meme. So as a society we don't have to control corporations... the "solution" is place the burden on individuals to create their own corporations and out compete the bad ones. Duh! I'm just waiting for you to say US workers can protect themselves if they just buy stocks in companies that leave the US. As our history proves in the rat-eat-rat market the amoral corporation has the competitive edge over the decent one. BTW... as a retailer Costco is not subject to the competitive forces a manufacturer is when we have free trade.

Is trade useful? Sure... IF IT BENEFITS BOTH SIDES. But AGAIN... your ideas on the "morality" of trade is to screw US workers because even if they're getting screwed they should be thankful their not impoverished by global standards, in order to benefit corporate owners and foreign workers.

Are you ever going to explain where our government is responsible for people in other nations?

[Generic Brad]

4. He will use trade to try to prove he is a genius

And he will fail spectacularly. This time next year our economy will be on very shaky ground.

[eniwetok]

6. free trade was a trap

Those writing these agreements for US corporations never were only concerned about their self interest, not how they were creating a new US economy that was to drive down wages and sabotage our own industrial base. Once the deals are done... they become harder and harder to exit from without consequences. But it must be done. Are there ways to do so without tariffs? Some nations use a VAT tax. Canada has one so it can't be a violation of NAFTA.

[TheFrenchRazor]

23. Trump was just playing people; the fast-food CEO labor secretary proves it. nt

[eniwetok]

24. Trump's view on labor is what we'd expect from a "billionaire"

Labor's just a commodity to be used by "job creators" like himself. And since all goodness flows downward, if Herr Trump thinks wages and corporate taxes are too high... then those little people will just have to grin and take it.

[eniwetok]

25. what were you agreeing to?

You quoted an article... and seemed to agree. What is it you're agreeing to? That the free trade agreements we've entered into were designed to screw labor and create massive trade deficits?

Or was it "Furthermore, the trade deficit is not a bad thing for everyone in the United States. Many of the items that we import from Mexico, China and other developing countries were actually produced by US companies. They wanted to take advantage of low cost labor to get an edge on their domestic competition. Similarly, Walmart and other major retailers are happy to have low-cost suppliers in the developing world."?

That you're opposed to these trade agreements that were designed to benefit some and screw others?

[portlander23]

26. I'm generally agreeing with Dean Baker

Trade has screwed over workers. Rather than this being a failure of negotiators, the core problem is that that negotiators of free trade pacts have not had the well being of workers as a condition for success.

[eniwetok]

27. I agree with that...

Just checking.