Trump’s New World Disorder, by Roger Cohen – The New York Times

“Goodbye to all that. Now we know that Donald Trump would rip up the post-1945 world order, trash an “obsolete” NATO, lean toward a Japan with nukes rather than the “one-sided agreement” that leaves the United States responsible for Japanese defense, tell Saudi Arabia that it “wouldn’t be around for very long” without American protection, and generally make clear that “we cannot be the policeman of the world.”

So much for Pax Americana; it was a bad deal, you see, and in the Trump universe the deal is everything. American power and far-flung American garrisons may have underwritten global security and averted nuclear war for more than seven decades, but they cannot be sustained by the “poor country” the United States has become. Why? Because, he insists, the whole postwar setup is a scam.

That Trump could be the next president of the United States is no longer a fanciful notion. Americans don’t want business as usual; Trump is not business as usual. He’s ranting and schmoozing his way to the White House as the man who, through some alchemy, will make an anxious America proud again. The world — already more combustible than at any time in recent decades — may be about to become a much more dangerous place.”

Source: Trump’s New World Disorder – The New York Times

 

This is a good piece by Roger Cohen, followed by some amazing comments. Cohen is absolutely right about the importance of NATO. Trump is a disaster, but part of his underlying critique is sound. The US has more re-balancing, more retreating to do, so that our allies can help pay for the world order we have been funding. I would add to the excellent discussion the point of Andrew Grove of Intel, we need a more job centric ecomomic policy and trade policy. He has a great argument for a new Scaling Bank, from his article in Bussinessweek in 2010 referenced in his piece in the NYTimes last week. Once we come up with a new widget, we need to apply tools and investment to manufacture the item here. We need manufacturing to remain competitive on so many levels. If we do not rebuild the middle class, why bother with the expensive foreign policy that is just for the 1%.

I have recently posted both of these referenced Andy Gove pieces at blog 1, InconvenientNew.wordpress.com.

Trade, Labor, and Politics, by Paul Krugman – The New York Times

“There are a lot of things about the 2016 election that nobody saw coming, and one of them is that international trade policy is likely to be a major issue in the presidential campaign. What’s more, the positions of the parties will be the reverse of what you might have expected: Republicans, who claim to stand for free markets, are likely to nominate a crude protectionist, leaving Democrats, with their skepticism about untrammeled markets, as the de facto defenders of relatively open trade.

But this isn’t as peculiar a development as it seems. Rhetorical claims aside, Republicans have long tended in practice to be more protectionist than Democrats. And there’s a reason for that difference. It’s true that globalization puts downward pressure on the wages of many workers — but progressives can offer a variety of responses to that pressure, whereas on the right, protectionism is all they’ve got.”

Source: Trade, Labor, and Politics – The New York Times

Trade and Tribulation. by Paul Krugman –  The New York Times

“To make sense of the debate over trade, there are three things you need to know.The first is that we have gotten to where we are — a largely free-trade world — through a generations-long process of international diplomacy, going all the way back to F.D.R. This process combines a series of quid pro quos — I’ll open my markets if you open yours — with rules to prevent backsliding.

The second is that protectionists almost always exaggerate the adverse effects of trade liberalization. Globalization is only one of several factors behind rising income inequality, and trade agreements are, in turn, only one factor in globalization. Trade deficits have been an important cause of the decline in U.S. manufacturing employment since 2000, but that decline began much earlier. And even our trade deficits are mainly a result of factors other than trade policy, like a strong dollar buoyed by global capital looking for a safe haven.

And yes, Mr. Sanders is demagoguing the issue, for example with a Twitter post linking the decline of Detroit, which began in the 1960s and has had very little to do with trade liberalization, to “Hillary Clinton’s free-trade policies.”reading the main storyThat said, not all free-trade advocates are paragons of intellectual honesty. In fact, the elite case for ever-freer trade, the one that the public hears, is largely a scam. That’s true even if you exclude the most egregious nonsense, like Mitt Romney’s claim that protectionism causes recessions. What you hear, all too often, are claims that trade is an engine of job creation, that trade agreements will have big payoffs in terms of economic growth and that they are good for everyone.”

Source: Trade and Tribulation – The New York Times

The Era of Free Trade Might Be Over. That’s a Good Thing. – The New York Times

“FOR decades, free-trade agreements, called F.T.A.s, have been one of the most solid planks in the platform of economic elites and establishment politicians. True, the occasional political candidate like Ross Perot argued against one deal or another and even President Obama ran on “renegotiating” the North American Free Trade Agreement, but once elected, presidents of both parties sought and ratified trade deals with a wide variety of countries.From Our AdvertisersThose days may well be over. What changed?For one thing, the economic populism of the presidential campaign has forced the recognition that expanded trade is a double-edged sword. The defense of globalization rests on viewing Americans primarily as consumers, not workers, based on the assumption that we care more about low prices than about low wages.:

Source: The Era of Free Trade Might Be Over. That’s a Good Thing. – The New York Times

Trade and Tribulation. Donald Trump’s popularity and Bernie Sanders’s Michigan upset prompt the question: Are we in a protectionist moment? nytimes.com|By Paul Krugman

InconvenientNews.Net

I have been trying to articulate what Paul Krugman says below for some time. Hillary Clinton needs to show that she understands these complex issues, and she needs to try and explain them. She has to teach voters about the value and limits of trade deals.Krugman’s connection to the importance of trade deals, and the threat of climate change is brilliant. Only through extraordinary cooperation, and international trade and pollution control deals, will the world slay this new dragon.

Donald Trump’s popularity and Bernie Sanders’s Michigan upset prompt the question: Are we in a protectionist moment?
nytimes.com|By Paul Krugman
David Lindsay
David LindsayHere is the most recommended comment from the NYT: pieceofcake konstanz germany 9 hours ago

‘Why did Bernie Sanders win a narrow victory in Michigan, when polls showed Hillary Clinton with a huge lead?’

Because Mr Sanders reminded the workers of Michigan that the…

View original post 210 more words

Pacific Trade and Worker Rights – The New York Times

“Obama administration officials say the T.P.P. goes further on labor standards than those earlier pacts. For example, the T.P.P.’s labor chapter requires all 12 countries to adopt minimum wage, working hour and occupational safety regulations. That is an improvement, but it could turn out to be mostly symbolic because the agreement does not specify how countries should set minimum wages. Nor does it establish any minimum standard for safety regulations.Experts say the most important labor provisions are found in side agreements the Obama administration reached with Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei individually to address specific problems like barriers to union organizing and the treatment of immigrant workers from countries like Myanmar. These countries will have to change their labor laws in specific ways before they are allowed to export goods duty-free to the United States.The agreement with Vietnam, a country run by a communist government, would require that workers be permitted to form independent unions that are not affiliated with the Communist Party and would have the right to bargain collectively and to strike. This should help workers who have been exploited to demand better pay and better working conditions.”

Source: Pacific Trade and Worker Rights – The New York Times

Paul Krugman attacks TPP: Trade and Trust – NYTimes.com.

Krugman writes: “In any case, the Pacific trade deal isn’t really about trade. Some already low tariffs would come down, but the main thrust of the proposed deal involves strengthening intellectual property rights — things like drug patents and movie copyrights — and changing the way companies and countries settle disputes. And it’s by no means clear that either of those changes is good for America.”

The Comments are brutal, mostly, at least the popular ones.

This writer spent an a few hours the other day reading the US Government positions on TTP, at Federal websites. The best was the trade office of the State Dept, but I can’t seem to find it today. The goals are admirable.
Here is a short list from the whitehouse.gov’

IF AMERICA LEADS:

Reduced or eliminated tariffs for American goods
Streamlined and simple customs rules for American businesses
Countries are required to put in place the most progressive labor standards, including a minimum wage, a ban on child labor, the right to form unions
Countries are required to put in place the most progressive environmental standards ever, including a ban on wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and overfishing
A free and open Internet that will allow people to openly search and buy American goods
New rules to make sure foreign state-owned companies compete fairly with our private businesses”
I found an example, Vietnam current has no tariffs on auto parts from China, but has a 27% tariff on auto parts from the US. The Trade desk insists that these anti US practices will be reduced. Perhaps we will have to wait till the document is made available, before condemning it. Anything that helps protect rhinos and elephants for instance, deserves support, unless real sovereignty is sacrificed, which remains now just an accusation.
TTP recognizes that the biggest growth will be in Asia, as well as the most pollution. Maybe the left should hold their fire, till they can see what they are trying to kill.

via Trade and Trust – NYTimes.com.

Free Trade Is Not the Enemy – William daley, NYTimes.com.

William Daley:  “The economic impact of the deal was immediately undercut by the collapse of the Mexican peso in 1994. But opponents’ predictions of “a giant sucking sound” accompanying the departure of millions of jobs from American workers never materialized, either. From Nafta’s ratification through the end of President Clinton’s final year in 2000, America added over 20 million jobs, including more than 300,000 in manufacturing. When the manufacturing decline began in earnest in 2001, the main culprits were the offshoring of jobs to China, with which we have no trade deal, and automation.”

“Geopolitically, President Obama is also right. If we don’t set the rules for commerce in the Asia-Pacific region, China will. Since 2000, China has concluded trade agreements with 23 countries, Hong Kong and Macau and is now drafting its own Asia trade deal that cuts us out. This deal apparently omits any mention of labor rights and environmental standards common in modern American-led deals. It would keep many of the region’s economies relying on the same substandard factory floor conditions that China and other Asian nations used to become manufacturing giants.”

via Free Trade Is Not the Enemy – NYTimes.com.

Free Trade Is Not the Enemy – William Daley, NYTimes.com

William Daley:  “The economic impact of the deal was immediately undercut by the collapse of the Mexican peso in 1994. But opponents’ predictions of “a giant sucking sound” accompanying the departure of millions of jobs from American workers never materialized, either. From Nafta’s ratification through the end of President Clinton’s final year in 2000, America added over 20 million jobs, including more than 300,000 in manufacturing. When the manufacturing decline began in earnest in 2001, the main culprits were the offshoring of jobs to China, with which we have no trade deal, and automation.”

“Geopolitically, President Obama is also right. If we don’t set the rules for commerce in the Asia-Pacific region, China will. Since 2000, China has concluded trade agreements with 23 countries, Hong Kong and Macau and is now drafting its own Asia trade deal that cuts us out. This deal apparently omits any mention of labor rights and environmental standards common in modern American-led deals. It would keep many of the region’s economies relying on the same substandard factory floor conditions that China and other Asian nations used to become manufacturing giants.”

via Free Trade Is Not the Enemy – NYTimes.com.