You know very well that the "Obama"s economic advisor apparently reassured the Canadian government that Obama really didn't mean his anti-NAFTA rhetoric" claim has been DEBUNKED.
The economy is tanking. Gas is headed to $4.00 a gallon. One in ten homes are "under water," worth less than their mortgages. The IMF predicts up to $1 trillion in financial losses, meaning banks and securities firms that have written off abut $230 billion are still staring at the abyss. The war in Iraq consumes $12 billion a month, as well as the attention of our leaders, and the lives of too many of our soldiers.
So the president of the United States steps up to the crisis and demands a fast track vote in 90 days from the Congress on...a trade agreement with Colombia.
Immediately, the editorial pages and establishment columnists trot out their knee jerk "free trade" arguments, demanding that Congress pass the bill. Immediately, both Clinton and Obama -- in the midst of a primary in Pennsylvania wracked by the loss of manufacturing jobs -- come out against the accord. Their opposition is immediately dismissed as a pander to labor, since just as Obama was embarrassed in Ohio when his economic advisor apparently reassured the Canadian government that Obama really didn't mean his anti-NAFTA rhetoric, Hillary Clinton is forced to stage a public dispatch of chief strategist and pollster Mark Penn, who was advising the Colombian government on how to get the deal passed in his day job. (She couldn't separate herself from her husband who has profited greatly as a consistent supporter of this and all other corporate trade accords)
The arguments for the trade accord are mostly insulting. The Colombians will benefit greatly, we're told, although their goods already come into America duty free. The US will benefit greatly, although any increased trade with Colombia will be a rounding error in our trade accounts.
It's not really about trade at all, we're told, it's a question of national security, designed to bolster an ally against the hated Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and to counter the rising anti-American populism in Latin America. But the anti-American populism in Latin America is a backlash stemming from the calamitous failure of the "Washington consensus" that the trade accord expresses. And the most likely effect of the trade accord, as NAFTA demonstrated, will be for heavily subsidized US food exports to displace to peasants from their lands, undermine wages in the cities, and reward financial elites. This will only strengthen the rebellion in Colombia, feed the drug economy, and bolster the backlash to failed US policies.
But this entire debate is taking place as if Ronald Reagan were president and it was still "morning in America." It is simply goofy to be talking about a trade deal with Colombia when the US economy is declining, and the world financial markets are hanging on by their fingernails. You're not in Kansas anymore Dorothy.
In fact, our massive global trade imbalances are at the center of the current crisis. We borrow or sell off assets at the rate of $2 billion a day to cover our deficits with the rest of the world. The housing bubble expanded on low interest rates, cheered on by Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve, but fueled in significant part by Chinese and Japanese purchases of US securities to keep their currencies low and sustain their mercantilist trade policies. The free trade lobby on Wall Street cleaned up by feeding the bubble with ever more exotic mortgage backed securities and taking on ever more reckless levels of debt.
It is time to get serious. The president and the Congress -- as everyone from the IMF to the hapless Alan Greenspan pleads -- should be focused on getting out of the recession. The hemorrhaging in housing has to be staunched We need a serious stimulus package that aids states and localities and starts to rebuild this country. We face a big-time struggle to curb the Wall Street addiction to gambling, imposing strict limits on the banks and investment houses that are "too big to fail." We need to develop a new global strategy to get our trade in balance, ending the staggering deficits that simply can't be sustained. And we've got to find a way out of a trillion dollar war that has no end in sight.
These are fundamental issues of national and economic security that can't be ignored. The accord with Colombia is utterly irrelevant, a silly distraction. The ship of state is under fire, taking in water and headed into an iceberg, and the president and the free trade claque want to argue about how much to tip the band. That, my friends, is lunacy.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

You know very well that the "Obama"s economic advisor apparently reassured the Canadian government that Obama really didn't mean his anti-NAFTA rhetoric" claim has been DEBUNKED.
The government is populated with cretins on the take who are totally ignorant of the issues on which they vote. We'd do better canvassing the halls of our state penitentaries (sp?) and finding the most street smart inmates, offering them freebies "out" if they'll assume the various positions open and sign an oath to put the interests of the United States of America first.
I'd feel safer.
NAFTA was stupid, this is insane.
BTW: More than 10% of the homes are worth less than the mortgage, the statistics just haven't caught up. Almost any home purchased since 2000 most likely was seriously overvalued.
Excuse me, but when you wrote:
Their opposition is immediately dismissed as a pander to labor, since just as Obama was embarrassed in Ohio when his economic advisor apparently reassured the Canadian government that Obama really didn't mean his anti-NAFTA rhetoric, Hillary Clinton is forced to stage a public dispatch of chief strategist and pollster Mark Penn, who was advising the Colombian government on how to get the deal passed in his day job. (She couldn't separate herself from her husband who has profited greatly as a consistent supporter of this and all other corporate trade accords)
do you think it is disingenious to state something that has been shown to be blatantly false as fact? The last that I heard was that it was Sen Clinton's camp who made that "assurance".
Just my thoughts.
TZR
"The Facts
The official Canadian report on the Feb. 8 meeting, leaked to the Associated Press over the weekend, presents a much more nuanced account of what took place than the story being retold by the Clinton campaign. It shows that Goolsbee talked about the need for a limited renegotiation of the NAFTA agreement, "in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement." This is consistent with what Obama has been saying about NAFTA on the campaign trail.
Unfortunately for Obama, the Canadian memo also quotes Goolsbee as saying that some of the protectionist sentiment aired in Ohio had more to do with "political positioning than the clear articulation of policy plans." To anybody who has been following the campaign closely, this is a blinding statement of the obvious, but it is not the kind of thing that you want to concede in public. Goolsbee has denied expressing such sentiments to the Canadians."
Both Obama's and HRC's aides are working overtime to paint their opponent in the worst light. As the rest of the article shows, NAFTA aint'a going away anytime soon.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/naftagate_part_ii.html?hpid=sec-politics
Lunacy is too kind a term to desribe what is going on. We have the finest and brightest minds running our country and banking industry yet they are running it right into the ground. There's a wall built up between the us and our elected officials. Letters/e-mails are screened by interns and put in a round file. It's time to take a long hard look at what conspiratorialists are saying - the very word "conspiratorialists" conjures up notions of crazies putting out information that, since it is not sanctioned by mainstream media , it is not to be believed. That is what the PTB want you to think. Keeps you away from seeing what's going on behind the scenes. How bad do things have to get before you realize: 1) Party differences are for our division. They are all the same at the top. 2) Mainstream Media is controlled and not divulging the whole truth. 3) Our government has been hijacked and they aren't concerned about Americans. It has to be a cabal that's international in scope and has it's own power and monetary interests at heart. Being angry and fearfull is obviously what they want us to be. It seems the plan is to take down America, eliminate the middle class worldwide, and reduce the population by billions. Then the PTB will have the world as their playground with us as slave labor. What do you say we take our time and energy and figure a way out?
Okay. Post CAFTA on line and let's see just what it says. Wanna bet a coffee bean Bush doesn't even know, or Congress for that matter.
As free trade and the corporate globablization trend continues, more and more of our domestic businesses feel the need to also tap inot those cheap labor markets in order to "remain competitive". Collectively, these individual decisions are having a disastrous effect in the aggregate on our economy, once the envy of the world, but now quickly devolving into third world status.
Specifically, our middle class is being decimated by these movements. With more and more people forced into lower paying jobs due to free trade and globalization, our collective purchasing power is being drained or purged at an alarming rate. Without a strong middle class, the true engine of our economy, we are susceptible to extended periods of deeper and deeper recessions.
Congress should give both Columbia and the Bush administration the "bird". It is about time that the people of the U.S. and their political representatives -- stand up to this nonsense. These free trade agreements are quickly transitioning our society and culture into a two class system of the elite rich and the increasingly poor -- an underclass. Such a system is antithetical to our democracy and is a breeding ground for fascism where the few rule over the many.
"It is about time that the people of the U.S. and their political representatives -- stand up to this nonsense."
Ain't going to happen! Why should politicians vote in the interest of their constituents when they operate in the safe environment of incumbency? Their compliance to the wishes of corporate lobbyist demands is rewarded with a cash shower that puts them miles ahead of any would be challenger at election time. No danger of the electorate voting them out of office, with the opposition effectively silenced by a lack of funds and an obedient mass media giving aid and comfort to the well connected, they have a monopoly on their elected office for an indefinite period of time.
I wish I had a good feeling about our future but the ongoing destruction of our educational system for the last 40 years, and a mass media that is little more that a state propaganda machine, has resulted in an uninformed electorate that really thinks everyone for themselves is the correct order for our civilization. We will all pay for our lack of vision !
The only people benefiting from these so-called "free trade" agreements are the business owners and, to a lesser extent, their stockholders.
These agreements are anything but free. In fact, they are extremely costly to the more mature economies, which in this case means us -- as in you and me.
The problem with free trade agreements should be obvious to everyone by now. The business community uses them as a basis for moving their manufacturing operations from stateside to where the cheap labor markets are located -- Mexico, China, India and now, Columbia. Benefiting from lower costs of production, they don't sell these manufactured items into those markets that they've relocated into. No, they couldn't afford them. Instead, they freely export those same goods back into the U.S. market "duty free" -- without penalty -- and reaping huge profits -- AT OUR EXPENSE.
CAFTA should be opposed but not for economic reasons. As has been previously noted, this agreement is putting the "Good Housekeeping Seal" of approval on a country rife with corruption and Human rights abuses. For shame.
The risk of increased Democratic representation is driving the right to grab up as much as possible right now.
Even more dangerous is that the same incentives apply for the Pentagon.
As much as I would like to see the right take the rap for the trouble we are now in I can not; nor should you.
NAFTA was as much a Clinton project as any member of the republic party (if those fuckheads can not say Democratic I will say republic)
We could lead the world back to sound economic footing; but only after looking in the mirror and accepting part of the blame for our current condition.
There are no virgin Democrats
April 9, 2008 --
Bill Clinton voiced "support" for a controversial Colombia free- trade pact that his wife has fiercely opposed - and he accepted $800,000 in speaking fees from a group boosting the agreement, it was revealed yesterday. http://www.nypost.com/seven/04092008/news/nationalnews/trader_bills_800g_in_colombia_gold_105636.htm
South America is doing it right.
Reagan brought "Democracy" to Latin America like they did most other countries (dropped from airplanes or well placed sniper bullets) and, for most, their lives were worse than they had it under Socialism. Now, they're rejecting neoliberalism/globalization and they're opting for Populists, Socialists,..anyone who will free them from the slavery that is Globalization.
Chavez, Morales, Lula - they didn't come to power because of Western-banker bank-rolled "Color Revolutions", assassinations, intimidation, sanctions, espionage, corporate media propaganda - they are leaders who were VOTED IN in fair elections (can we say the same??)
Our "Ally" in Colombia is using U.S. taxpayer dollars to continue the orchestrated torture and **assassination of union organizers** with the full blessing of the White House, Congress and the Senate.
Think about this: To Washington - predatory Bankers and Corporations are good guys, union organizers deserve to be killed.
Koolaid wearing off yet?
"The Colombians will benefit greatly, we're told, although their goods already come into America duty free. The US will benefit greatly, although any increased trade with Colombia will be a rounding error in our trade accounts."
Most US exports to Colombia have a tariff. Removing this tariff will make US exports less expensive for the Colombians to buy thereby helping to reduce the terrible debt that you bemoan.
As far as killing of trade unionist, you are living in the 1990's. Death per capata for union organizers is tiny compared to the general population and most of those are common criminals maskerading as union activists fighting turf wars.
And btw, Uribe was elected and reelected democratically. His terms of office are defined in the Colombian Constitution.
I think a more accurate title for this article is "No Trade is Good Trade", or maybe "Anti-Trade Retoric is a Democratic Talking Point, So Lets All Get On Board".
I'm a member of the 2% part of Colombia that would benefit from the accord, but I oppose it completely, this trade pact is designed to benefit very specific sectors of our economy at the expense of our agriculture sector.
Didn't our country get along just fine before 1980?
We were protective of American jobs, our ingenuity, patents and people, and we, subsequently became the largest economy on earth. We looked out for each other and bought each others products and allowed foreign goods in as needed to fill gaps or add flair.
Didn't we have a large and growing middle class? Didn't the wealthy still remain wealthy and American entrepreneurs flourish?
Didn't we set up a system that made us the envy of the world?
Then we took these protections off and what do we have now.... How did we turn something like free trade into a free for all for cheap labor and enviro degradation, all at the expense of the country that made it all possible.
I had this naive thought that free trade meant the free flow of native goods and services between countries. Silly me....
"Didn't we have a large and growing middle class? Didn't the wealthy still remain wealthy and American entrepreneurs flourish?"
- That wasn't enough for them. The Neoliberals whined because they wanted them and their cronies to have even more zeroes to the left and it pained them to see working-class people retiring, taking vacations, sending their kids to college because they consider us lazy, inferior, undeserving...They're Social Darwinists - they believe in class structure as a higher order where few win and many lose,...as long as they aren't the ones in the soup-lines.
Bush's Grandpappy Prescott was one of the big bankers making a killing on predatory loans (and laundering Nazi money) and FDR shut him down along with Mellon and a handful of other power-hungry robber-barons and that appeared to quell that flavor of organized crime for a short while at least.
I guess you could say this is the Bush family revenge - kill FDRs New Deal and condemn the under-classes to permanent poverty.
Silly reader! "OUR" country did spectacularly, but the country that matters did not.
Our system was the envy of the common people of the world, not of the priests, merchants, generals and bankers who own it.
South America is seemingly headed on a path of a real and decent freedom for the people there. Would that the people of the colossus of the North be similarly inclined.
I've studied this and the U.S. has virtually no tarifs upon any products coming in from Columbia and we give them $700 million dollars in aid every year.
We do not need a trade agreement. Tell the Columbians to either drop their tarifs on our goods, or we erect tarifs to their goods and stop the aid. That is a simple thing. If countries want to trade with us, then they either drop their blockages to our goods, or they get the same thing.
We do not need these "agreements" which always leave us in the weaker position.
A lunatic can't suddenly change and rule wisely. What do you expect? Let's just hope he takes some more vacation time soon.
Yeah, the country runs better when he's not doing ANYTHING!
As usual, Bush has his head up his ass and as usual, everything he touches turns into a disaster. I'd swear to God the man is taking advanced courses in Stupidity. It hard to believe that we are living in the same country as in 2000. We had a 200 billion surplus, peace, fairly normal relations with the rest of the world and a government that worked generally in our favor. Now we have a country in recession, an endless war, domestic spying, legalized torture and the rest of the world hates our guts. Whether the boy king likes it or not, the destruction of the US economy and our ties abroad, the degradation of our laws, our freedoms and our Constitutional rights are his legacy. May he rot in hell.
"advanced courses in studpidity," I like that. One of the few things the man excels at!!! Good one, Mark701.
Every future action of our government should pass a "smell test." The sole question should be" "Will this measure benefit the middle class?" There should be rigorous proof of that fact from experts not associated with the potential benefits of the measure. No more Banana Republics!
Who gets to define middle class? Who gets to define "benefit"? Why should the middle class get preference over other arbitrary collections of people?
Free trade =democracy=security. This is the "myth" promoted by Thomas Friedman. Neoliberal/neocon - we still need a real economy. Yes, stop the gamboling on Wall Street. There si where our future has been gamboled away. Pump and dump; liars loans; derivatives; mortgage-backed securities, deregulation; free trade. It is all fraud of one form or another.
Where did Thomas Friedman get his proof? He never did. He just promoted globalization for multinational corporations.
Yes - the Free trade = democracy=security is working well in our trade relations with China and many other repressive regimes. You see how well it's working with Saudi Arabia as well. With trading partners like these who needs enemies?
"Where did Thomas Friedman get his proof?"
From the other Freidman, Milton "free market" Freidman. Now if we could just get Thomas to join Milton in his utlimate fate. And while wer'e at it, maybe Thomas can take Milton's buddy Greenspasm with him.
The Colombian free trade agreement must be very bad, or Bush wouldn't want it so much. One thing for sure: Colombia's human rights records is the pits. Trade union organizers get systematically murdered by the paramilitaries. Aerial spraying of coca crops ruins the environment and poisons Colombian peasants. Uribe is dictator for life. Not only should Congress refuse to approve the free trade agreement, they should cut off all military aid to Colombia.
Uribe is surrounded by populists and the Reagan-era tactics of "Color Revolutions", assassinations and propaganda campaigns don't work anymore. The neocon machine is out of ideas and the people of LA decided they want *their own form of Democracy*
I think it's time the people in this country do the same.
Say goodby to a lot more jobs . That loud noise you hear is the gaint sucking sound . We should move to Columbia and take up coke harvesting now that it will come in to the U.S. duty free . A lot of profit there . Thank you Bill Clinton and Mark Penn !
As a matter of fact the cocaine plantations have been drastically reduced in Colombia and the way that things are looking the production will shift to Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia with the transportation help of Venezuela. Colombia has no tariffs but they are set to expire soon and what the trade agreement will do is just make them permanent. I really like the point regarding the subsidized food products that will be exported since laws like the farm bill will not protect Americans but american conglomerates and could cause a geopolitical problem all over the world (did anybody see the protests in Port Au Prince today?). If we get even deeper into the last point, why don't lift the tariffs on sugar cane ethanol? Protecting the industry sometimes protects the people, but most of the time protect businesses that don't want to compete.
Don't worry, if they sign the FTA then the drugs will
Posted April 9, 2008 | 09:00 AM (EST)