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 All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PufPuf23

(8,689 posts)
31. I am in general agreement with Robert Reich. He is a very smart man.
Thu Jun 2, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jun 2016

I am for trade, trade is very good.

A global economy is very good also if fair.

Smoot Hawley not very good and was enacted after the market crash of 1929 and beginning of the Depression.

Smoot Hawley ("protectionism&quot restrained trade so there was a short turn positive blip and then things got worse.

As FDR rebuilt the economy, the trade restrictions of Smoot Hawley were reduced piece meal.

There was WWII and embargos and the world was pretty messed up.

After WWII, there was Bretton Woods and GATT to organize monetary, financial, and trading policy for the western industrial nations and their minions in the developing and third world.

Learn about GATT that was structure between 1947 and the WTO in 1995.

The problemwith NAFTA and all the free trade agreements is that the social, labor, and environmental benefits are not being achieved.

Trade is increased and profits and utility is increased but not well distributed because of the parties that game the system.

GATT was dynamic (most everything is dynamic) and worked well (and was gradually improved) between 1947 and 1995. There was no good reason not to build upon GATT but political and those that saw an opportunity to shift income and wealth to their accounts.

GATT is Keynesian economics and the free trade agreements neo-liberal.

If the free trade agreements were actually working as theorized and advertised, the deficit and surplus accounts would clear; employeement would change not go away; everyone would benefit, and the system would be good for the environment rather than create natural resource booms and busts.

Parties need to operate in good faith and long time horizons but don't. Some folks get very wealthy and most others lose.

first of all these so called trade agreements have very little to do with trade hollysmom May 2016 #1
ditto Hollys mom larkrake May 2016 #2
So, if Your Concern Is Human Rights Suffering Under Trade, What About Cuba? TomCADem May 2016 #3
Your assumptions are false. JDPriestly Jun 2016 #17
+10000 Armstead Jun 2016 #21
"What do folks think would happen if those agreements were cancelled?" Thank you Recursion May 2016 #4
I think that thousands and thousands of jobs have been moved to Mexico under the JDPriestly Jun 2016 #16
The Free Trade Agreements are complex, full of nuance, and favor trans-national corporations. PufPuf23 May 2016 #5
The Colombia Free Trade legislation supports continued use of coal and PufPuf23 May 2016 #7
What exactly is "Free trade" versus "Fair trade?" EndElectoral May 2016 #8
Free trade and fair trade defined PufPuf23 May 2016 #10
Isn't Bernie Proposing To Impose Tariffs on Goods from Developing Countries? TomCADem Jun 2016 #11
Smoot Hartley is a red herring and omits nearly 50 years of a successful history under GATT PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #12
Good post. Good analysis. JDPriestly Jun 2016 #14
Thank you. Some days wonder if it is worth the effort. alas. eom PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #18
Why does Bernie's Tariff Work as Opposed to Smoot Hawley? TomCADem Jun 2016 #20
I suspect anything you don't agree with, you just dismiss as "jargon" Armstead Jun 2016 #22
Sorry, I don't have a Ph.D, just trying to understand if yo TomCADem Jun 2016 #23
I didn't write it. Armstead Jun 2016 #24
Sanders is proposing something different than Smoot Hawley. PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #29
Personally, I Gravitate Toward Robert Reich's Views On Trade TomCADem Jun 2016 #30
I am in general agreement with Robert Reich. He is a very smart man. PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #31
Tariffs are not the problem. It's all the other provisions hidden in these trade agreements JDPriestly Jun 2016 #15
Where did you get that information? Trump is proposing such tariffs, not Bernie who has proposed to pampango Jun 2016 #28
Note that Plan Colombia - part of neo-con plan for global dominance PufPuf23 May 2016 #9
Bernie is for fair trade. As are most progressives. Eom jillan May 2016 #6
What is 'fair'? Does that mean only trading with countries with wages as high as ours? CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #26
Even that would be problematic. Our trade deficit per capita is higher with Germany than with China. pampango Jun 2016 #27
Trade is OK. But trade disputes should be settled in courts under national control JDPriestly Jun 2016 #13
FDR knew that, to be fair, trading rules had to be enforced neutrally or they would not work. pampango Jun 2016 #19
More right wing Hillspeak AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #25
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie/Trump/Hillary On T...»Reply #31