Obama (Finally) Putting Attack On NAFTA Front and Center?

From Barack Obama's victory speech tonight:

"It's a game where trade deals, like NAFTA, ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wages at the local fast-food joint or at Wal-Mart. It's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that is why we need a president who will listen not just to Wall Street, but to Main Street, a president who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard, and that's the kind of president I intend to be when I'm president of the United States of America."

I've been troubled by some of Obama's votes on trade, and I've made no bones about that. But this rhetoric is encouraging.

As I have written, it's good politics for Obama to put our lobbyist-written trade policy on trial in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania. But that' s not why I am encouraged. I am encouraged because it is good for the country for a major candidate to put this issue at the center of the debate in the stretch run of the nominating process.

Since Edwards left the race, we haven't had anyone really focusing on this issue on the Democratic side. But it looks like that may be changing. And whoever you are for in this race, if you are a progressive, you will agree that's a good thing, indeed. With polls showing Americans are desperate for a departure from our current trade policy, getting this issue into the debate is an important step.

Comments

[nomogen]

I believe this is nothing but a way to cut into Edwards now cutting a deal with Clinton. It is creating a pressure on Edwards... sort of telling him, remember NAFTA and how workers rights were sold on the open market? If he still goes to Clinton for a juicy post and deliver some sort of 10% white men to her (although I doubt if this will happen), I believe Edwards will again put his personal ambition ahead of anything else... something we always thought as the case no matter how much we agreed with his views.

As far as which one of them will be better, my guess is both of them will be better than anything that is happening now. Obama needs to do less favor to others because he did not fund raise from them for past 20 years. So, he can piss off some business leaders and put some environmental standards back into the equation. It will increase cost and it will be good because we need lower our giant consumption. We will buy less junk and will might as well make them here.

[HighBeam]

Where is your evidence that not signing NAFTA would have saved the jobs that were moved to Mexico? Where is your data that NAFTA cost more jobs than were gained? Moving jobs out of the US started long before NAFTA was signed. If your assertion is that cheap labor cost jobs, why are the Japanese building plants in the US instead of Mexico? I"m not saying that NAFTA doesn"t have flaws that should be amended, such as environmental safe guards, but isolationism will not work in a global economy.

[Querent]

Are you hearing voices? Sirota didn't use the work "isolationism". If you haven't seen the evidence you are calling for, you haven't been looking. How were ANY jobs in the US gained because of NAFTA?

[RobertOak]

Either/OR. This claim that either you are "for" NAFTA OR you will have economic disaster is ridiculous. You can certainly examine every trade agreement, clause by clause, and amend those clauses which are not working. Take for example, China's tariff schedule. Demanding that be reduced or else (which China reduces their schedule ONLY after they have captured that market), rewriting that part of the China trade agreement doesn't kill all trade with China. You can have strategic trade, based on the best national interest. It's not an either-or scenario and that sort of either-or reasoning is actually presented by those very multinational corporations making huge profit margins by labor arbitraging the global workforce.

[cynara]

Excellent argument!

[LewisR]

Sure, NAFTA hurts, but ya only got 2 options: either send some jobs to South America or build a damn high wall on our southern border. Where there are hungry children, parents will do whatever they must to feed them. Like working for less than we're willing to, and anyone responsible to investors will connect them to the jobs, or lose his/hers. I've yet to read a realistic alternative, but I'm still reading. If we want to solve this catch-22, we just got to find a way to send the jobs to S. Am and not Asia.

[cynara]

Corporations would pay us all as little as possible and not have any environmental or labor standards. Thats why responsible governments have labor and environmental standards companies must meet and they enforce these laws.

Even in South America, a government can create and enforce labor laws that guarantee that their citizens are not abused by large corporations.

Unfortunately, many third world governments are extremely corrupt and are easily bought by international corporations. Our multi-national corporations influence third world governments by lobbying them to keep minimum wages low and laws weak. And then our corporations bribe them to look the other way as they violate the existing labor laws.

Our government has a chance to counter the influence of our corporations, by including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements. As for finding a way to send jobs to S. Am and not Asia, a good start would be stop giving US companies an incentive to move to Asia, like giving China "most favorite nation trading status".

You mentioned residents of the third world are willing to accept poor paying jobs in order to feed their children. Well, minimum wage in Mexico ($4.50 USD per DAY) is not enough to buy food for one person in Mexico, neither is the average Mexican blue collar wage (between $6.50 and $8.00 per DAY). Which is why we have such a large number of illegal immigrants from Mexico, they can't make ends meet in their own country.

[jazzman]

Looking back on NAFTA, it seems quite clear that the sole beneficiary of these trade agreements were corporations and their relationship with labor. We had international trade before across the world so the only thing NAFTA brought to anyone was the ability of corporations to stop paying high wages, ship jobs to low cost sites with no environmental, labor, health, or safety regulations; in other words get slave labor.

This is one of the biggest betrayals of a nation every perpetrated and it was done with a Democrat as President.

[cynara]

And "slave labor" is not just being melodramatic. Azteca 7, out of Tijuana, had a expose on grape vineyards outside of Ensenada that actually HAD indentured servants. People from Oaxaca were put on a bus and lured north with promises of employement and housing. The reporters found them living in plywood shacks without insultaion or plumbing, with 12 people or more sleeping in room. They weren't paid, until they could pay off their "transportation fee" from Oaxaca and "housing" was deducted from their pay. People brought their kids, who, with no schools around, also worked in the fields.

And we're told not to care. It was fifty miles south of where I live. I probably eat those grapes. And how do our grape vineyards, only 100 miles north, in Temecula, compete?? By cutting their own workers salaries? But in most cases, they can't compete, so now farmers are picking up and moving south of the border, where they too, can benefit from Oaxacan slave labor...
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/04/america/export.php

[hopeless277]

Not just A Democrat, A Clinton. Now his wife wants a shot. I say if you are running on your husbands record then you have to take credit for ALL of his record. NAFTA, telecom bill, all bad for Americans. All good for Clintons. See the divide? So if what is good for Clintons is bad for Americans then we must reject Hillary totally. Unless she gets rid of Bill, then we might talk...

[JackMehoffer]

NAFTA is great for the US, a tremendous benefit. You just take all that Canadian Oil and gas for granted obviously. A bad deal for Canada however. Get rid of NAFTA and you can freeze in the dark.

[flatus]

One thing that may help the NAFTA situation is this. If you are in a technical or managerial position and your company asks you to go to a foreign land to train your replacement, instead of hanging on to your job for a few more months, tell your employer to get fucked.

[flatus]

So, now we have talk from Obama about NAFTA. Did I miss his discussion of his plan? Will he force corporations to pull back into the US, lose competitive edge, and then watch them die?

NAFTA was pandoras box. The lid has been lost.

[H8FascistCons]

How is making Americans work for
Chinese wages gaining a competitive edge? All that does is make us a third world country. One hundrid fifty million working poor, if that's your idea of America, please, please consider moving to China, we can't literally afford your kind of vision for America...

[flatus]

huh?

[RobertOak]

http://blog.noslaves.com/hillary-and-obama-on-trade/
is a blog piece that comparison contrasts Hillary and Obama's actual trade policy positions. As much details and links in print as could be located in one place.

I dare say Hillary in print is way more Progressive and willing to completely reform trade policy than Obama. Now will that translate into real campaign rhetoric?

[cynara]

Good link. I read it. But honestly, I kinda like Obamas take on it more. The reason is the following. Hillary states:
"I will also systematically review every trade agreement to ensure that it is delivering benefits to American workers"

In fact all of her statements on trade, talk about giving advantages to Americans.

Obama stated:

"He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks"

Well, the way I look at it. We could drive up tariffs, put up trade barriers and do other actions to protect American workers till we're blue in the face. But if we fail to address the falling working class salaries in developing nation trading partners, American salaries and working conditions will continue to fall "in order to compete". More jobs will be shipped oversees since labor is cheaper. Penalties may slow this, but in the long term, they'll keep moving out.

Take Mexico for example. We've stood by and let our multi-national corporations influence their government to keep wages mind-boggling low (average blue collar wage is $6.50 a DAY). I often hear that we have no business trying to drive up Mexican wages, but American corporations, buoyed by trade agreements like NAFTA, are actively lobbying the Mexican government to continue suppressing Mexican wages.

The result, the buying power of the Mexican minimum wage continues to fall. Our factories continue to head south in order to take advantage of cheap wages, American factories cut American jobs and benefits in order to compete with cheap Mexican wages, and Mexican flood north to escape cheap Mexican wages, weakening our unions and further driving down American wages.

By not actively addressing this, through trade agreements and other incentives, we will continue to loose ground. Its not enough to protect American jobs by looking inward, because the forces driving down our wages and cutting our jobs are not located in America- they are in our trading partners.

[vff]

Thank you cynara for your research. This is one of the most informative blogs I have read on HuffPo. I agree that in the long run we will be better off if we think globally instead of just our immediate self interests. Trade is not a zero sum game. Trade also promotes peace.

[RobertOak]

"worker and environmental standards" are not enforceable.

The proof that doesn't work is with the Jordan trade agreement, which has strong worker environmental protection standards written into it.

Both Obama and Clinton voted for the Peru Trade deal, but what Obama is saying is not what actually works.

http://www.publiccitizen.org/documents/Peru_Panama_Procurement_Factsheet_Final.pdf

Revamping trade agreements does NOT mean tariffs. The best resource to go look at what needs to happen is public citizen.

Benefit US workers is what you want, US 1st and foremost and no, that does not mean tariffs that actually means a strong national economy as well. There is capital protection going on in those trade agreements, labor arbitrage (which lowers everyone's standard of living and concentrates wealth in the hands of multinational corporations, super rich), the current trade agreements are for multinationals, which enables them to move industries, capital out of the country...it's way more complex
than you're thinking it is but to have a strong national economy, you must put your focus on what benefits *that* economy the most. This is precisely what China, Japan and many others do. The US? uh, not so much!

[hopeless277]

Of course you must know, David, that what a person says on the campaign trail is in direct contradiction to what they will do once elected. If Obama manages to survive the Clinton attack machine and become president, I predict nothing will change. Nothing. He will embrace Bushs policies and begin collecting those big checks from Big Oil and Big Pharma. He will sell the American people to China and retire a rich man. Same for Hillary. America has become a rich old drunk man who gets rolled by everyone coming down the street. Don't worry, you'll get used to it. Just like the Russians did.

[JasonEverettMiller]

Yeah, because he has been doing that all along and has no track record of personal sacrifice for common good. This is a horribly imprecise view of reality.

[knixphan]

that's why our congressmen have phone numbers.

[hopeless277]

Which are connected to phones that are answered by machines which put the messeges on tapes that are erased automatically each and every day. You REALLY don't think our 'representatives' give a rat's ass what WE, the people want, do you? Oh, you innocent child....

[skeptical1]

I am encouraged that Obama has brought up the NAFTA argument just in time to challenge billary in Ohio and Pennsylvania. This reflects the progressive trends that helped the dems take control of the house and senate in 2006. The out sourcing of jobs is highly profitable and the illegal insourcing of labor has served to break wages here at home - also very profitable. It's important to note that, when adjusted for inflation, wages for the overwhelming majority of Americans have been declining for mor than twenty years. NAFTA and the WTO have dramatically accelatored the pace.

The true political dialogue in this country is between those "corporate internationalists" who advocate the so called "free trade" agreements and those who advocate for the well being of the people residing in the country. From Perot and Buchanan to the AFL-CIO and Nader on the left, there was majority opposition to NAFTA with a majority of Dems voting against it. It took Bill Clinton to split the party and puch through the Bush 41 initiative. The Clintons are married to the multinational corporate version of "free trade" and its about time they are called on it.

At what point in the race to the bottom are the Clintons going to admit that NAFTA, the WTO and Most Favored Nation status for China were mistakes? I imagine that it will be the same day that billary admits the mistake of her votes on Iraq and Iran - never.

In the meantime, we need to recall that wealth is created by adding value to products and then selling them. The wholesale exportation of the means of production is impoverishing the country. How will we pay off this astronomical debt without restoration of a significant manufacturing sector?

At the same time, we need to actually count the unemployed and underemployed rather than parrot the nonsense that has become our statistical methodology at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That way, we might actually have an accurate picture of what has happened in the US since billary pushed these programs through on behalf of his corporate donors.

[cynara]

"At what point in the race to the bottom are the Clintons going to admit that NAFTA, the WTO and Most Favored Nation status for China were mistakes? I imagine that it will be the same day that billary admits the mistake of her votes on Iraq and Iran - never."

I've thought the same thing. And this was one of the main reasons I decided to vote for Obama.

[LeonBNJ]

I believe that Obama is trying to reach very important groups of voters he needs to win now and in November with an issue that needs to dealt with. NAFTA and other trade issues have cut out a lot of decent paying jobs for a wide range of Americans, including many Democrats and a growing number of independents. Even if you want lower taxes and like Republicans on social issues, if you don't have a decent job due to trade policy, you will consider seriously voting for a Democrat and one without the issues that Hillary Clinton has.

[jsarets]

Obama explains his position on trade pretty clearly in The Audacity of Hope. He is not a protectionist (sorry Edwards fans). He's part of the Democratic faction focused on making globalization work for the working class.

There are three components to this: 1) updating our trade agreements so that they aren't simply labor displacement vehicles, 2) working with our trading partners to improve wages and working conditions, and 3) making the investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare necessary to maintain American competitiveness in the global economy.

The engine of growth in the 21st century will be the emerging middle classes in China, India, and other developing nations. If American businesses can't compete to deliver the countless goods and services that will be needed to lift these hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, then the American middle class is toast.

We have to reshape our economy around exports. We need free trade and low tariffs around the world. If we give in to our protectionist reflexes, we'll be sorry. That's why I was never really keen on Edwards despite his generally appealing candidacy.

[Serfie]

You wrote about Obama:

There are three components to this: 1) updating our trade agreements so that they aren't simply labor displacement vehicles, 2) working with our trading partners to improve wages and working conditions, and 3) making the investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare necessary to maintain American competitiveness in the global economy.

These are politician talking points with no substance whatsoever.

Look at the language carefully.

Point one means nothing. "Labor displacement vehicle?" WTF is that?

Point two is US imperialism. You can't impose onto other countries environmental and labor standards.

Point three is what the US should be doing for itself, regardless of international trade policy.

When are Americans going to stop goose stepping behind feel good rhetoric and start demanding actual substantive plans for action?

[cynara]

"Labor displacement vehicle" means a mechanism by which labor is displaced. Labor is displaced when the US based workers are displaced as their jobs are moved to third world countries where workers are paid less.

No one wants to impose anything on anybody. But there is nothing wrong with providing incentives for countries to improve their own labor and environmental conditions, we would all benefit. The trading partner nation would benefit, since there income gap would close and we would benefit since our jobs would not be shipped oversees. Besides we're already influencing foreign environmental and labor standards. US based corporations actively lobby foreign governments to maintain substandard wages and working conditions. And US corporation bribe foreign officials to look the other way while they violate local labor and environmental laws. The result is that labor and environmental standards become weakened by OUR corporations. After NAFTA was enacted, Mexican wages fell and they have yet to recover.

We already influence foreign labor and environmental standards, why not influence them in a positive direction? By including clauses in trade agreements making the trade agreement conditional on enforcement of local labor and environmental regulation, as well as conditional pending improvements in wages for a country or industry, we would pressure our trading partners in a positive direction. This is not imperialism, if a foreign country did not want to meet they conditions, they don't have to accept the trade agreement.

[cynara]

"There are three components to this: 1) updating our trade agreements so that they aren't simply labor displacement vehicles, 2) working with our trading partners to improve wages and working conditions, and 3) making the investments in infrastructure, education, and healthcare necessary to maintain American competitiveness in the global economy."

Thats sounds like the sensible approach to me!!

[MinuteMan]

This might be the sign of an interesting campaign dynamic. With Edwards gone Obama and Clinton can move towards some of Edwards's positions without worrying about driving voters towards Edwards. What we need to do now is to apply pressure to push both Obama and Clinton leftward and get them to stake out more progressive positions on trade, healthcare, etc., while progressives still have some leverage. Forcing them to be more progressive will also increase their electability. On any issue which they do not have a clear distinction with McCain they will have nullified that issue for purposes of the general election. If the candidates stake out true progressive positions, even the malleable McCain will have trouble trying to delude voters into believing that there is no difference between the Democratic position and his own.

[cke]

Heidfeld gets it totally right. NAFTA is about Canada and Mexico, not China or India. Asia is where our real competition is coming from. Creating a strong North American alternative for cheaper labor and expanded markets makes sense for us when compared with the Asian threat of cheaper labor but no accompanying market expansion benefits for our goods. At least the Mexican & Canadian government are full democracies and trade lawfully. Not so for our world competitors. NAFTA is smart.

[cynara]

Okay, then why did the Clintons, after passing NAFTA, decide to give China most favorite nation trading status???

[Querent]

The phrase is "most favored", not "most favorite". Most favored status simply means that normal market conditions apply, and there are no tariffs put in place because of political conditions. It's hard to take seriously a question like this, which shows a TOTAL lack of familiarity with even the most basic level of the issue. I would suggest you Google "most favored status" for some background.