Few New Jobs Expected Soon From Free-Trade Agreement With South Korea

[t0dd]

Source: NYT

WASHINGTON — The revised free-trade agreement with South Korea announced on Friday by the Obama administration has gotten acclaim from corporate leaders and Congressional Republicans.

But the pact is likely to result in little if any net job creation in the short run, according to the government’s own analysis.

Praising the deal reached by his trade negotiators, President Obama said on Monday that the accord would “boost our annual exports to South Korea by $11 billion” and “support at least 70,000 American jobs.”

The Obama administration has been careful to use the verb “support,” not “create.”

In fact, the effect of the agreement on aggregate output and employment in the United States “would likely be negligible,” according to a federal study, largely because the United States economy is so much larger than that of South Korea. Indeed, the study found, the country’s overall trade deficit with the rest of the world is likely to grow slightly as a result of the agreement.

But the deal is likely to be beneficial to particular industries, including the Detroit automakers and manufacturers of industrial and electronic equipment and high-technology products like pharmaceuticals and medical devices, according to that study.

American manufacturers of textiles and clothing could be hurt, however, as relatively high American tariffs on those products are reduced.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/08/business/global/08korea.html

[somone]

1. When corporate leaders and Congressional Republicans praise Obama for something

it's a signal for American workers to get ready and bend over.

[Creative]

2. That's probably true; however, we have to hope that this not another 1700 pages (NAFTA)

of BS.

The way I figure it, if it takes 1700 pages to define something that is free, it ain't free.

Nevertheless, I tend to favor the concept of free trade. The problem is that when everyone hangs their own special little paragraphs on the these agreements, those without a paragraph get screwed.

Free trade deals should only include a simple agreement between the nations themselves. It should protect the security interests of each nation, etc. Beyond that, it should be up to those doing the trading to work out their own agreements.

[nyy1998]

10. Couldn't agree more with your description of Free Trade

[Lasher]

3. I expect lots of new jobs - in South Korea

How many times does this same bullshit have to play out the same way before we realize what a total sellout these free trade agreements really are?

[onethatcares]

4. what I'm wondering is,

if our capitalist masters are trying to export our type of economy to places like Korea and get them all worked up over buying the latest geegaws, how do they throw the Christmas spending season out there for the unwashed masses? How do they get these folks to think about "what's in their wallets"?

Same goes with Africa and every other place that hasn't been polluted with the "I wants".

Those folks that have been trading goats and fava beans for the past two hundred years are gonna look really strange on a used car lot, dontcha think?

[librechik]

5. soon? never...

[BenzoDia]

6. What we really need is better access to their beef market.

[Gin]

8. santa is coming to South Korea though....who else wants to have

a free trade treaty with us? we are ripe for the picking.

[DukeT]

7. S Korea is the worse kind of trading partner

It is totally irresponsible to have free trade with a nation that has such a record of protectionism of its own market.

Foreign brands, including the Europeans and Japanese, represent a paltry 6 percent of the South Korean market. South Korea has a history of blocking imported cars. In the past the Korean IRS conducted tax audits on anyone who bought an import. Last year car dealers who sell imports had to send tax authorities the names, addresses and personal information of anyone who bought an import. On top of that, South Korea now classifies imports in the highest-risk category for insurance rates, making them expensive. In short, they use every means available to them to keep our imports down (less than 8k vehicles per year allowed) and demand that they import 400k vehicles INTO our country.

ONLY RECIPROCAL TRADE agreements should be sought at this point with all of our so-called trading partners. A trade partner that is allowed to continue its unabashed protectionism, is NOT a partner.

They should be allowed to import ONLY as many vehicles, steel, appliances, and electronic – that they allow to be imported INTO their country.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

9. If there are any new jobs, they will mostly be in N. Korea, not the US. n/t