Actually, the fact that Obama and Clinton jacked up the anti-NAFTA rhetoric just in time for the Ohio primary and will almost certainly abandon it on Wednesday is all the evidence I think we need.

I'm a bit baffled here. If there's still a race after today, the next state up is Pennsylvania. Surely the anti-free trade message will have at least as much salience there, and our candidates will have to keep up the rhetoric, no?

I don't know if I'm a representative free-trade advocate, but while I'm concerned by the Obama-Clinton rhetoric (and by what they might do in concert with an agreeable Democratic Congress), I consider what candidates say for the general election a better indication of how they'll govern. Especially since this stuff will get hashed over by McCain's team, forcing the Democrats' nominee to either back off on this issue or express some nuance.

@kishin

And I'm pretty sure North Carolina is not a hotbed of free-trade loving NAFTA boosters.

Isn't it the position of both campaigns that they are committed in principle to free trade, but wish to revise the current regime to level the playing field wrt labor and environmental standards? The rhetoric was heated, but the actual change telegraphed to the Ohio voters was quite modest.

It's still a little skeevy that the Dem candidates are allowing Ohio Democrats to think that they will entertain a big rollback of NAFTA when they quite obviously won't. But it's not as bad as actually promising such a rollback, which, contrary to what the MSM is suggesting, neither of them did.

This flap over Canada (especially Hon. Sen. McCain's claim that this will somehow affect GWOT) confuses my as it was my understanding that the the US actually has lower labor and environmental standards as concerns our international agreements. Perhaps this is simply because I'm confused, and my understanding is in error.

Most Americans would favor free trade with modifications if they had any reason to believe the Government was the least bit insuring the middle class would benefit. Right now the rich and super rich benefit but the middle class is taking it in the shorts. All the while there is nothing that leads the middle class to believe the "elite" gives a rats ass about them.

"least bit interested in insuring." I have been doing that a lot lately. Somewhere between my brain and my fingers a word gets left out.

Funny thing about leadership is it doesn't always equate to pandering for votes.

International trade needs more work and everyone knows that. The only question is which candidate is sincere about improving it without hurting our trade partners.

Clinton or Obama? I don't think either one gives a hoot about that issue. They just want to get elected.

Of course, McCain doesn't even know what international trade is. He's just a big ol' pander-bear these days.

Fact is, Mexico and Canada have both implemented MORE International Labor Protocols than the U.S. McClatchy called out both Obama and Clinton campaigns on this last week, and both admitted they had nary a complaint against either one.

IF, IF, either one actually were concerned about workers, they would:

1. Address the WTO, which is a different critter than NAFTA;
2. Provide more funding to NAFTA's federal job retraining provisions. (This second one could be a good recession "stimulus," too.)

Don't hold your breath.

So-called "free trade" issues will be moot in the not too distant future. Global trade depends on low-cost long distance transport of goods, which in turn depends on low-cost fuel for transport.

Thus large-scale global trade is an artifact of the era of cheap, abundant fossil fuels, in particular cheap, abundant, high-quality oil, which is already beginning to come to an end.

When the cost of transporting cheap consumer goods from China to the USA, for example, becomes exorbitant it will no longer be profitable for the Walmarts of the world to globalize manufacturing. Similarly, it will no longer be economically viable to ship large quantities of food all around the world.

The world economy of the future will be based on local and regional production of goods for local and regional consumption.

International trade will play a much smaller role than it does today. Perhaps there will be a return to transporting limited quantities of certain high-value specialized goods on sail-powered ships.

Kevin Drum says: It's likely that a Democratic president will, for a time at least, put new trade deals on the back burner while they work on other priorities

Oops, I guess Kevin Drum didn't notice that Obama recently announced that he supports Bush's SPP scheme (spp.gov), aka "NAFTA on steroids". Perhaps WM might consider bringing someone on who's more familiar with these issues so Kevin Drum doesn't make mistakes like that in the future.

[Note: WM and/or KD have a habit of deleting and editing comments without notice, so this comment might disappear or be edited.]

On the other hand I think economists are taking a second look and considering the unthinkable, ie. there might have to be some adjustments to current deals that in the end amount to less freeness in trade. I'm surprised at the amount of questioning I've seen among important economic thinkers and their tentative suggestions that it might not be the perfectly clear net positive everyone thinks it should be.

It wouldn't surprise me if NAFTA got tweaked, especially if the Tories up north are still in charge this time next year. If I was a certain American likely to be the next president I'd be considering a little payback for the recent unnecessary meddling; at least a little cage-rattling.

SecularAnimist, exactly right. Major California warehousing company The Allen Group is building a $3 bil or so site here in south Dallas/south suburban Dallas, while pushing for the area to get official "inland port" recognition to expedite customs.

$150/bbl oil will probably crater the need for that.

Lonewacko, if you just posted more sensical stuff, like this, you wouldn't have stuff get "lost."

Kevin: "Actually, the fact that Obama and Clinton jacked up the anti-NAFTA rhetoric just in time for the Ohio primary and will almost certainly abandon it on Wednesday is all the evidence I think we need." (Emphasis added.)

That might atually make sense, provided that you can explain how the designations of "fact" and "evidence" can be applied prospectively to an event that has clearly yet to occur.

If you can successfully rationalize that, then Attorney General Mukasey would like to talk to you about working for the Department of Justice.

From North of the Border...

There was a ton of opposition to the first FTA with the US, and subsequently to NAFTA, much of it on the grounds that the US government would never actually comply with the agreed terms. In large measure, these suspicions have proven well grounded. The ongoing dispute about softwood lumber is an excellent example of US failure to live up to the agreed terms. The US lumber industry cannot compete, period. If it ever once did produce dimension lumber competitively, this is no longer the case and it will never be in that position again, thus the tariff and non-tariff barriers erected illegally on its behalf.

It has proven exasperating to give up sovereignty, much of the border machinery, and domestic standard-setting of all sorts only to be faced with the same old imperial nonchalance. While the AutoPact has been an outstanding economic success for Canada since it was concluded in the mid-60s, all subsequent trade liberalisation rounds have largely failed to deliver for Canadians. Its not really a question of reopening though. This would put your energy supply guarantees at risk and frankly you can no longer afford to even contemplate a future without Canadian natural gas and heavy oil exports. This dependency will only increase with time and it will cost you more than you could ever imagine in terms of real domestic purchasing power foregone. So candidates, Go ahead, Make my day. Give cancellation notice if you dare and start making those windup cars and trucks as fast as you can. Get out the candles and the wind powered air conditioners out of storage as well. And do have an ever so nice day.

Kevin Drum: I'd say there's virtually no chance that there will be any significant rollbacks in our current trade regime.

On the plus side, Kevin wrote "current trade regime" instead of the ludicrously inaccurate "free trade". The latter might even be good stuff, but when foreign governments spend over $1T manipulating the exchange rate, the regime is anything but free trade.

On the down side, Kevin is probably right about there being no major changes.

in a Nixon-goes-to-China sense

Ever hear of Billy Clinton? This wouldn't be new ground for a Democrat.

Cut the right deals on farm subsidies

Yes, people complain about those poor foreign farmers being undercut by US (European, Japanese, etc.) farm subsidies. OTOH they complain about rising grain prices. Hint: you can't have your cake and eat it too.

and intellectual property

Any form of "intellectual property" protection is a matter of government granted monopolies that completely violates the principles of free trade. To say that you believe in free trade and "intellectual property" protection means you're either ignorant or hypocritical. Ok, one more possibility - it's a form of doublethink that would put Orwell's fiction to shame.

Seeing as how the Tanker contract was just awarded to the Europeans in the middle of a WTO dispute that was purposefully ignored AFTER John McCain wrote a letter to Gates telling him to ignore the WTO dispute, seeing as how this is the biggest mil contract ever, seeing as how these aircraft will come online during the next president's watch, seeing as how we are in a recession/depression and need an economic stimulus package, seeing as how this is mostly a european plane and the economic stimulus will mostly occur in europe, seeing as how LABOR UNIONS oppose the european tanker deal,

HOW DO WE PIN OBAMA AND CLINTON DOWN on their positions regarding:

WTO
NAFTA
LABOR
ECONOMIC STIMULUS
This Tanker Deal

To North of the Border,

I don't doubt what you said about softwood lumber, but with respect to energy if Americans offer to buy it Canadiens will certainly sell it. I'm pretty sure it works that way with or without NAFTA. I thought all talk about guarantees is just Republican scare words occasionally used to justify invasions in some parts of the world. Oil futures etc happen between and within transnational companies and secures supply for customers regardless of borders, except in rare cases (such as Cuba at various times, which gets supply based on political arrangements.)

To return to my point, regardless of the current political theatre south and north of the border (and again the Prime Minister's office leaking the memo deserves rebuke), regardless of that I sense some rethinking among some of the most stalwart free-traders. My own preference is to alleviate the damage to individuals from dislocation by using public investment in infrastructure, education, safety nets, etc. and make trade as unencumbered as possible. But, I'll be anxious to see what comes of the new discussion I'm starting to see. Based on some recent writings by economists I think it will be thoughtful.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2004258151_webtanker03.html
Business & Technology | Rival to Boeing's tanker was 'superior' on all counts, analyst says | Seattle Times Newspaper

...

McCain, the likely Republican nominee for president, helped scuttle a previous 2001 deal that gave the contract to Boeing.

"Having investigated the tanker lease scandal a few years ago, I have always insisted that the Air Force buy major weapons through fair and open competition," McCain told The Associated Press. "I will be interested to learn how the Air Force came to its contract award decision here and whether it fairly applied its own rules in arriving at that decision."

Obama, of Illinois, expressed disappointment Sunday that Chicago-based Boeing lost out.

Obama said it was hard for him to believe "that having an American company that has been a traditional source of aeronautical excellence would not have done this job."

Clinton, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she was "deeply concerned about the Bush administration's decision to outsource the production of refueling tankers for the American military."

While details of the decision are not fully clear, Clinton said, "it is troubling that the Bush administration would award the second-largest Pentagon contract in our nation's history to a team that includes a European firm that our government is simultaneously suing at the [World Trade Organization] for receiving illegal subsidies."

John McCain wrote a letter to Gates telling him to ignore that lawsuit.

discussions in the U.S. of trade would benefit from reading Waldan Bello, a philippino sociologist. Trade looks quite different from his perspective, and I find him empirically convincing. Neither "side" of the debate within the U.S. usually takes into account the global impact of U.S. actions the way he does,he's worth a look. The only thing close I can think of is Naomi Klein, "Disaster Capitalism"--also a good read.

HOW DO WE PIN OBAMA AND CLINTON DOWN on their positions regarding:

WTO NAFTA LABOR ECONOMIC STIMULUS This Tanker Deal

Posted by: anony on March 4, 2008
----------

Forget it. You can't. They don't have 'positions', they have political ads to pander to very narrow interests.

For a complete package based on principles and leadership you'd have to find another candidate -- and it isn't McCain either.

When they say nothing about NAFTA in Texas and Obama pounds on Clinton in Ohio on NAFTA, then it's perfectly clear that it's all b.s. They're just two traditional pandering politicians who offer nothing special. Their only major redeeming quality that's appealing is neither of them is George W. Bush or a Republican.

Kevin

The 'Nixon-to-China' metaphor deserves a well-earned rest. I explain why on the Lowy Institute's blog, The Interpreter:

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2008/03/Starting-now%2c-I'm-on-Nixon-Watch.aspx

From a Canadian perspective, as articulated above, the Obama/Clinton criticism of NAFTA is bizarre. It just seems to be domestic code for "I feel your pain. Goodbye and have a nice day." Tokenism at its worst. Both of them are better than that.

Bob M: Both of them are better than that.

Where's the evidence?

Both of them are better than that.

Agreed. But, global trade is causing problems that need addressing somehow. Yet, final word goes to you. Once again, agreed.

It would be difficult for a Democrat to be more harmful to free trade than Bush has been.

Think steel. Think softwood lumber. Think sugar. Wherever there's a substantial voter group to be placated, Bush has cheated and lied -- and screwed some other group of Americans -- to deliver protectionist nonsense to please that group.

The principle is clear: a free trade agreement signed with the United States is a worthless piece of paper, at least when you have a little shit like Bush in the loop.

It's not at all clear that our shits are going to be any worse than that little shit. Our shits lobbied for the damn things, implemented the damn things, and have lots of "modern economists" that worship the damn things.

Why oh why do we let our economists insist on tenure while they demand free trading, a free market, and a tearing down of our environmental and safety standards?

SecularAnimist: might I suggest you do some investigation into the relative carbon costs of intercontinental shipping against transcontinental rail or truck.

Local, mid-distance trade is far more imperilled by peak oil/greenhouse than long-distance trade.

Furthermore, aside from synfuels, it's much easier to run a ship on coal power than a truck.

jerry: Why oh why do we let our economists insist on tenure while they demand free trading, a free market, and a tearing down of our environmental and safety standards?

Tenure is an economics professor's way of shouting at every else: SUCKER!

It's not their fault that when they told their students to be deaf, they actually listened.

Economists on the economy are like neocons on the Middle East--lots of harebrained theories with no practical real world experience or common sense.

And the most harebrained of all economic theories is probably free trade.

What assurance do we have that Kevin doesnt have serious(for him) economic motivations for supporting all free trade, all the time? Of what does his portfolio consist? Obviously, his job is not going to be outsourced. Would he lose his job if he were to become an opponent of free trade?

All professional opinion makers and corporations involved in same, should be economically transparent.

Some American readers don't seem to realize what they bought in NAFTA. They bargained for and received "domestic status" with respect to Canadian oil and gas production. This means that the supply cannot be interrupted and that shortages should they appear for whatever reason will be shared with Canadians. With reopening, all this would go away. Chinese enterprises have already tried to buy into the Alberta oil and gas bonanza. Day and night the metallurgical coal trains run through my little town on their way to Roberts Bank and ships to the Far East. If NAFTA goes away, the Chinese would again line up to take current production at world prices. They have already proposed a pipeline and natural gas liquifaction plant for a west coast port.

Is the guarantee something you would want to throw away frivalously by reopening? I think not if your brains are working and admittedly thats conjectural in light of world events of the past seven years.

So.... stop screwing around with softwood protectionism, take the lumber like good boys and girls and when the climate warming hurricanes blast the living daylights out of your southern housing stock, be thankful that the northern boreal forests and the western temperate rain forest can supply dimension lumber and particle board to repair the mess. That's assuming you have a government that wants to repair the damage of course and in light of recent experience that looks sort of iffy. Otherwise, it's a big hello to China and all those yankee dollars they are holding.

Do you feel lucky, punk?

What do "trade deals" like NAFTA have to do with "free trade"?

Free trade simply means letting Americans do business with anyone they want to, anywhere in the world, on whatever terms they can negotiate for themselves, without hindrance. It also means they do it on their own nickel, and assume all their own risk, without subsidies and special protections.

"Trade deals," on the other hand, involve imposing provisions requiring other countries enforce the so-called "intellectual property" monopolies of Microsoft, the RIAA and MPAA. Trade deals are all about subsidies and protection.

Who knows? Cut the right deals on farm subsidies and intellectual property and maybe we could even get the Doha round rebooted.

Because, of course, the American people are crying out for the Doha Round to be rebooted.

Sometimes the ability of neoliberals like Kevin to detach themselves from the reality of popular opinion amazes even me.

Good evening. Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Precious moments baby bedding. I found only this - aloha baby crib bedding. Bedding, the man has many marine guides. Bedding, the relief of mother has been created as backing the wealthier occupation, in that it values women to like each vegetarian's sundry palms in a advice of motif-encoding. Thank :-) Thyra from Britain.

Terrific piece of content, this is very similar to a site that I have. Please check it out sometime and feel free to leave me a comenet on it and tell me what you think. Im always looking for feedback.