Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:11 AM Jun 2016

OUPblog: Sanders’ contradiction on trade and immigration

BY RICHARD S. GROSSMAN JUNE 1ST 2016
Oxford University Press

How does Sanders fit into the Trump “punish foreigners” mold? After all, his views on immigration could hardly be more different than those of Trump. He favors a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, proposes easing barriers to asylum seekers, and opposes the current detention and deportation system and the militarization of the US border.

Although Sanders is happy to welcome immigrants to work in the United States, like Trump he is vehemently opposed to helping them work in their home countries—if that results in increased imports to the United States. Sanders takes pride in having opposed every trade deal ever presented to Congress, including NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA (the Central America Free Trade Agreement), and the normalization of trade relations with China.

{snip}

What distinguishes Sanders from Trump is that he actually gives a damn about people who are not native-born Americans. This is admirable. And using America’s position as a major player in the global economy to promote fair labor practices and more strict environmental standards around the world should be high on the agenda of the next president.

Nonetheless, Sanders’ policy of being kind to foreigners when they want to immigrate, but hostile to them when they want to stay home and sell us stuff makes no sense.


Richard S. Grossman is a Professor of Economics at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, USA and a visiting scholar at Harvard University’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.

http://blog.oup.com/2016/06/sanders-trump-trade-immigration/

17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
OUPblog: Sanders’ contradiction on trade and immigration (Original Post) ucrdem Jun 2016 OP
Trade agreements are complicated. Bernie doesn't do complicated. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #1
Complicated legislation also makes him mad. ucrdem Jun 2016 #2
That's why his break up the banks bill is roughly one page, and just says 'we'll break them up'. CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #6
I will be interested Uponthegears Jun 2016 #3
Well, that's where it gets complicated, because trade agreements negotiated under Dem admins ucrdem Jun 2016 #4
I think you may be mistaking Uponthegears Jun 2016 #7
I think you're making a good point. Garrett78 Jun 2016 #17
I support liberal immigration laws and liberal immigration policies. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #5
Another 'misdirection' posting having nothing to do with results of 'free trade'! dmosh42 Jun 2016 #8
You don't remember toys made in Japan? Or Datsuns? ucrdem Jun 2016 #9
Oh I do remember those Japanese products, and I remember Harry Truman. I have to differ on your..... dmosh42 Jun 2016 #11
There is no conflict in protecting the interests of American workers wherever they hail from TheKentuckian Jun 2016 #10
The two issues are totally different democrattotheend Jun 2016 #12
Bernie will 'renegotiate' trade agreements presumably to ensure that labor and pampango Jun 2016 #13
Thanks pampango, ucrdem Jun 2016 #14
I think Bernie intends to reject the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA and other already existing pampango Jun 2016 #15
Re-negotiating NAFTA is reinventing the wheel. ucrdem Jun 2016 #16

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
2. Complicated legislation also makes him mad.
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:58 AM
Jun 2016

If it's complicated and he doesn't like it, it's rigged. Great message he's got.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
3. I will be interested
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:02 AM
Jun 2016

to see where this goes.

Obviously Professor Grossman's basic premise is correct to a certain degree. Free trade benefits SOME foreign workers in their native countries SOME. Not even the staunchest opponent of free trade would say otherwise.

What he, and other "socially conscious" global capitalists, fail to understand is that Sanders' view of the workers of the world neither begins, nor ends, with trade policy. Yes, opening up US markets to Vietnamese widgets will increase the income/living standards of a Vietnamese worker in the widget factory. It will not, however, increase that worker's share of the fruits of her labor. The division of the wealth (let's call it "profit&quot she (and she alone) creates will remain the same. If she receives .00001% of the profit generated by Widget Inc. before the TPP, she will still receive .00001% of the profit after TPP. In other words, economic injustice will continue unabated. For every extra dollar (pardon my ethno-centrism) she receives, the fat cats at Widgets, Inc., Vietnam will receive $100,000 and their power and control over her life will multiply exponentially. She will receive an extra egg each year but she will lose her freedom.

Liberal (socialist?) anti-free trade advocates demand that free trade be preceded by economic justice, that the benefits of access to open markets go to workers, not fat cats. To demand less is to condemn foreign workers to slavery.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
4. Well, that's where it gets complicated, because trade agreements negotiated under Dem admins
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:09 AM
Jun 2016

like NAFTA and TPP do address labor and environmental issues. The argument made against them is usually that they don't do it vigorously or enforceably enough, but there are also opponents of any enforcement mechanism. But running against the TPP on slogans alone which is what Bernie is doing is just hotdogging aka demagoguing.

 

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)
7. I think you may be mistaking
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:06 AM
Jun 2016

caution (yes, I am trying to use the most Bernie-friendly word, I admit it) for demagoguery.

Espousing a substantial alteration in the employer-employee relationship (for example, one which channels only so much profit to the employer as the employer contributes in THEIR OWN LABOR combined with what is required to protect - not enhance - capital investment), a position which Bernie undoubtedly supports, would be political suicide. While the revolutionary side of me says he should be up front about the end game (or is it the start game?), that isn't how politics works.

I offer my observation solely to illustrate the fact that Sanders' anti-free trade policies are not short-sighted or naïve (except to the extent that they are politically so) as the author suggests. They are just more radical than Sanders is willing to discuss.

Garrett78

(10,721 posts)
17. I think you're making a good point.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 03:06 PM
Jun 2016

I don't disagree with your position, per se. But I'm not so sure it's as much a matter of political suicide (Sanders was never going to become POTUS and has little to lose) as it is a realization that the complexity of these matters outweighs the attention span of the electorate. Plus, TV spots and debates are very limiting--it's all about sound bites. Of course, in his stump speeches, there's really no reason why Sanders can't delve more deeply.

Altering the employer-employee relationship in the US is hard enough. Influencing that relationship in another country (when folks in your own country are demanding cheap goods) is damn near impossible. The sad fact is that millions of people lead lives that contradict the values they espouse when they're all fired up about an upcoming election. Following the election, they go right back to their day-to-day lives that rely heavily upon that which they claim to oppose. This is especially true of middle class and upper class liberals (many blindly own stock in unethical companies, for instance), but it's also true of people who are struggling to achieve what those more well-to-do liberals already have.

As I've written before, the US is extremely individualistic and oriented toward the Cult of Personality. This results in people overestimating the power and influence of individual actors, while underestimating systemic forces. Bernard Chazelle wrote years ago that "America has lefties but no left." There's no organized Left, and I think one reason for that is not enough people are truly willing to do what it takes to bring about systemic change (like being less materialistic). And millions of people are just trying to get from one day to the next (they work, they raise kids, they seek entertainment), so getting involved in local political organizations is not a priority.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,710 posts)
5. I support liberal immigration laws and liberal immigration policies.
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:14 AM
Jun 2016

It doesn't make sense when folks wants lots of people to come here yet want to prevent them from selling stuff from where they are now.

The conservatives are just as bad... They want to prevent folks from coming here but are okay with them selling us as much stuff as they want from where they are.

IMHO, the only consistent position is to support liberal immigration and liberal trade laws.

dmosh42

(2,217 posts)
8. Another 'misdirection' posting having nothing to do with results of 'free trade'!
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:25 AM
Jun 2016

I'm old enough to remember the 50s-70s, when not only labor, but big business was against opening the flood gates to 'slave labor competition'. Then with the 80s, the richest decided they could set up in those slave labor countries and destroy our middle income population. And they had the guy to help in Reagan. When he left office, the Japanese government presented him with a two million dollar 'gift' for keeping the flood gates open and selling out the US. Anyway, the same old bullshit continues with the 'internationalists'
wanting to have it all.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
9. You don't remember toys made in Japan? Or Datsuns?
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:29 AM
Jun 2016

It started right after WWII. NAFTA and TPP are basically efforts to salvage another mess left by the GOP.

dmosh42

(2,217 posts)
11. Oh I do remember those Japanese products, and I remember Harry Truman. I have to differ on your.....
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:27 PM
Jun 2016

version of NAFTA and TPP. Clinton and the 'third way' gang couldn't wait to get them enacted, at least NAFTA, and maybe TPP which would be the complete sellout of American workers. But the bankers and Congress will be so happy!

TheKentuckian

(25,023 posts)
10. There is no conflict in protecting the interests of American workers wherever they hail from
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:23 PM
Jun 2016

It isn't being hostile, it is representing the people that pay your salary and put their trust into you.

democrattotheend

(11,605 posts)
12. The two issues are totally different
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:52 PM
Jun 2016

In the United States, we have minimum labor standards - a minimum wage, overtime, child labor laws, OSHA, etc. (whether they are as strong or as well-enforced as they should be is beside the point). Immigrants (including undocumented immigrants) have all the same rights under those laws, so at least in theory, employers cannot get cheaper labor here by hiring immigrants, so there should be no incentive for employers to give jobs currently held by citizens to immigrants to reduce the cost. However, in practice, many immigrants, especially undocumented immigrants, are afraid to come forward to enforce their rights, and in fact have fewer rights in terms of remedies for discrimination and retaliation for union organizing. Granting a path to citizenship to undocumented immigrants levels the playing field by making additional remedies for employment law violations available to them and making them less afraid to come forward to enforce the rights they do have. This in turn reduces the incentive for employers to favor immigrants over non-immigrants when hiring.

In contrast, "free" trade agreements make it cheaper for companies to outsource jobs to developing countries where the US labor and employment laws do not apply, and where workers are often paid pennies on the dollar compared to comparable American workers. Unlike Bernie's proposal for a path to citizenship, which should have the effect of making it harder for employers to cut labor costs and undercut their competitors by hiring immigrants for sub-minimum wages, "free trade" agreements incentivize employers to do exactly that by shipping jobs overseas.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
13. Bernie will 'renegotiate' trade agreements presumably to ensure that labor and
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:22 PM
Jun 2016

environmental standards are included and enforceable, thus making trade more 'fair'.

That is similar to what FDR did with his ITO. That is the liberal, international law-based, cooperative approach to trade governance that FDR believed in and Bernie believes in.

Bernie's liberal approach to immigration reform is consistent with his liberal approach to trade reform.

Trump is liberal in neither. He opposes immigration reform. (That is the understatement of the year.) He will 'tear up' trade agreements while Bernie will make them better. Big difference. Trump has o respect for international law. Bernie does.

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
14. Thanks pampango,
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:31 PM
Jun 2016

Always love your replies but I wonder if we aren't sort of completing Bernie's thought for him, i.e. imagining that we're hearing something we aren't, because I frankly have never actually heard him even say the word "renegotiate." It's "defeat." For example here's his official position on the TPP, which I'm posting in toto but will be happy to remove or shorten by request:

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS: THE TRANS-PACIFIC TRADE (TPP)
AGREEMENT MUST BE DEFEATED

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a disastrous trade agreement designed to protect the interests of the largest
multi-national corporations at the expense of workers, consumers, the environment and the foundations of
American democracy. It will also negatively impact some of the poorest people in the world.

The TPP is a treaty that has been written behind closed doors by the corporate world. Incredibly, while Wall
Street, the pharmaceutical industry and major media companies have full knowledge as to what is in this treaty,
the American people and members of Congress do not. They have been locked out of the process.

Further, all Americans, regardless of political ideology, should be opposed to the “fast track” process which
would deny Congress the right to amend the treaty and represent their constituents’ interests.

The TPP follows in the footsteps of other unfettered free trade agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA and the
Permanent Normalized Trade Agreement with China (PNTR). These treaties have forced American workers to
compete against desperate and low-wage labor around the world. The result has been massive job losses in the
United States and the shutting down of tens of thousands of factories. These corporately backed trade
agreements have significantly contributed to the race to the bottom, the collapse of the American middle class
and increased wealth and income inequality. The TPP is more of the same, but even worse.

During my 23 years in Congress, I helped lead the fight against NAFTA and PNTR with China. During the
coming session of Congress, I will be working with organized labor, environmentalists, religious organizations,
Democrats, and Republicans against the secretive TPP trade deal.

Let’s be clear: the TPP is much more than a “free trade” agreement. It is part of a global race to the bottom to
boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights;
dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge
our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system. If TPP was such a good deal for America,
the administration should have the courage to show the American people exactly what is in this deal, instead of
keeping the content of the TPP a secret.

10 Ways that TPP would hurt Working Families

1. TPP will allow corporations to outsource even more jobs overseas.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, if the TPP is agreed to, the U.S. will lose more than
130,000 jobs to Vietnam and Japan alone. But that is just the tip of the iceberg.
· Service Sector Jobs will be lost. At a time when corporations have already outsourced over 3
million service sector jobs in the U.S., TPP includes rules that will make it even easier for
corporate America to outsource call centers; computer programming; engineering; accounting;
and medical diagnostic jobs.
· Manufacturing jobs will be lost. As a result of NAFTA, the U.S. lost nearly 700,000 jobs. As
a result of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China, the U.S. lost over 2.7 million jobs. As
a result of the Korea Free Trade Agreement, the U.S. has lost 70,000 jobs. The TPP would make
matters worse by providing special benefits to firms that offshore jobs and by reducing the risks
associated with operating in low-wage countries.

2. U.S. sovereignty will be undermined by giving corporations the right to challenge our laws
before international tribunals.

The TPP creates a special dispute resolution process that allows corporations to challenge any
domestic laws that could adversely impact their “expected future profits.”
These challenges would be heard before UN and World Bank tribunals which could require taxpayer
compensation to corporations.
This process undermines our sovereignty and subverts democratically passed laws including those
dealing with labor, health, and the environment.

3. Wages, benefits, and collective bargaining will be threatened.

NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, and other free trade agreements have helped drive down the
wages and benefits of American workers and have eroded collective bargaining rights.
The TPP will make the race to the bottom worse because it forces American workers to compete with
desperate workers in Vietnam where the minimum wage is just 56 cents an hour.

4. Our ability to protect the environment will be undermined.

The TPP will allow corporations to challenge any law that would adversely impact their future
profits. Pending claims worth over $14 billion have been filed based on similar language in other
trade agreements. Most of these claims deal with challenges to environmental laws in a number of
countries. The TPP will make matters even worse by giving corporations the right to sue any of the
nations that sign onto the TPP. These lawsuits would be heard in international tribunals bypassing
domestic courts.

5. Food Safety Standards will be threatened.

The TPP would make it easier for countries like Vietnam to export contaminated fish and seafood into
the U.S. The FDA has already prevented hundreds of seafood imports from TPP countries because of
salmonella, e-coli, methyl-mercury and drug residues. But the FDA only inspects 1-2 percent of food
imports and will be overwhelmed by the vast expansion of these imports if the TPP is agreed to.

6. Buy America laws could come to an end.

The U.S. has several laws on the books that require the federal government to buy goods and services
that are made in America or mostly made in this country. Under TPP, foreign corporations must be
given equal access to compete for these government contracts with companies that make products in
America. Under TPP, the U.S. could not even prevent companies that have horrible human rights
records from receiving government contracts paid by U.S. taxpayers.

7. Prescription drug prices will increase, access to life saving drugs will decrease, and the profits of
drug companies will go up.

Big pharmaceutical companies are working hard to ensure that the TPP extends the monopolies they
have for prescription drugs by extending their patents (which currently can last 20 years or
more). This would expand the profits of big drug companies, keep drug prices artificially high, and
leave millions of people around the world without access to life saving drugs. Doctors without
Borders stated that “the TPP agreement is on track to become the most harmful trade pact ever for
access to medicines in developing countries.”

8. Wall Street would benefit at the expense of everyone else.

Under TPP, governments would be barred from imposing “capital controls” that have been
successfully used to avoid financial crises. These controls range from establishing a financial
speculation tax to limiting the massive flows of speculative capital flowing into and out of countries
responsible for the Asian financial crisis in the 1990s. In other words, the TPP would expand the
rights and power of the same Wall Street firms that nearly destroyed the world economy just five
years ago and would create the conditions for more financial instability in the future.
Last year, I co-sponsored a bill with Sen. Harkin to create a Wall Street speculation tax of just 0.03
percent on trades of derivatives, credit default swaps, and large amounts of stock. If TPP were
enacted, such a financial speculation tax may be in violation of this trade agreement.

9. The TPP would reward authoritarian regimes like Vietnam that systematically violate human
rights.

The State Department, the U.S. Department of Labor, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty
International have all documented Vietnam’s widespread violations of basic international standards
for human rights. Yet, the TPP would reward Vietnam’s bad behavior by giving it duty free access to
the U.S. market.

10. The TPP has no expiration date, making it virtually impossible to repeal.

Once TPP is agreed to, it has no sunset date and could only be altered by a consensus of all of the countries that
agreed to it. Other countries, like China, could be allowed to join in the future. For example, Canada and
Mexico joined TPP negotiations in 2012 and Japan joined last year.


https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/the-trans-pacific-trade-tpp-agreement-must-be-defeated?inline=file

Many, many reasons why it's bad but not one suggestion as to how to make it better. And that's Bernie's whole M.O.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
15. I think Bernie intends to reject the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA and other already existing
Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:29 PM
Jun 2016

agreements. Trump says he will reject the TPP and tear up NAFTA and the existing agreements. Bernie respects international law and wants it to work for the common good. Donald has no respect for international law.

If elected president, Bernie Sanders would not simply ignore the trade deals he has called "disastrous," but would instead renegotiate them with partner nations, according to an interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer .

Donald Trump, another free trade critic in the 2016 presidential race, has vowed to violate the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization treaties by imposing tariffs that clearly violate the deals. Sanders, by contrast, has more respect for the conventions of international law. He told the paper that he would maintain the existing deals as he sought to replace them.

"They should be renegotiated," Sanders told the Inquirer. "We have an agreement, legally we have agreement. But they should be renegotiated."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bernie-sanders-says-he-would-renegotiate-nafta-not-violate-it/ar-BBrx1dj

ucrdem

(15,512 posts)
16. Re-negotiating NAFTA is reinventing the wheel.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 12:57 PM
Jun 2016

That's what TPP did. And it would only become necessary by defeating the TPP. Ditto health care. He talks like the ACA is just another burdensome tax. Well, many who didn't previously have health insurance think it is, and I've heard the complaints myself, but he doesn't need to run around getting people pissed off at ACA. His message strikes me as negative in the extreme. Basically he's the guy muttering under his breath about how much the teacher hates us if s/he's giving us this horrible final exam. That goes over well with some people but it does nothing to expand the base or help win races in November.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»OUPblog: Sanders’ contrad...