Stop Calling the TPP A Trade Agreement – It Isn’t

[DanTex]

15. How am I "fudging"?

First, like I said, you're dwelling on pointless details. "Moving jobs" and "moving production" can mean any of a number of things, including Nike-style outsourcing to contractors. Since I'm the one who actually used the term, a good person to ask about what I meant by it would be.... me.

And, yes, it is quite irrelevant who owns the factory, at least from the point of view of the workers. The only thing that matters is where the work is being done. The ownership of the factory only changes who gets the profits. If you think some kind of law preventing Americans from owning factories in Vietnam would do anything to stop jobs from moving there, you will be sorely disappointed.

In fact, what you are saying is not just false, it is closer to the opposite of the truth than anything. When the US buys goods made in Vietnam, what ends up happening is that Vietnamese people end up owning American capital in return. So the end result of a trade deficit to Vietnam is a surplus of Vietnamese-owned capital in America, versus American-owned capital in Vietnam. The "freed up capital" you are talking about will be in America, not in Vietnam.

Where does this capital go? Mostly into the financial markets: stocks and bonds. Which means, that, yes ultimately it does end up going into other industries.

And your point is?

My point is that the fact that free trade produces losers is no more of an valid argument against free trade than it is against new technologies.