http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-national-economic-interest-first-trade-agre...

The meteoric growth of the US as an economic power with a thriving middle class was founded on the notion of pursuing America’s national interest first. For nearly two centuries, few formal trade agreements were legislated and trade administration was not outsourced to international tribunals. Instead, American policy makers crafted trade policies to advance America’s own priorities.

Yet, over the last 70 years or so, trade policy shifted. Instead of furthering America’s national interest, our approach to trade has been scripted by the thematic headline of “globalization.”

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the modern “globalization” framework of free trade agreements and the international agencies that govern them were actually established to promote US foreign policy interests following World War II, not the interests of America’s domestic economy. Today, these foreign strategic objectives and the policies that advanced them are no longer relevant. The Marshall Plan is ancient history. Bretton Woods collapsed in the early 1970s. There hasn’t been a successful GATT round in over 20 years. The rebuilding of Europe and Japan are long completed. And fear of the Soviet Union is a distant memory.

The world has changed, but globalization’s original architecture has failed to keep pace. As a result, the multi-lateral trade agreements and the massively complex bureaucratic institutions that govern them have become clouded, convoluted and impossible to interpret.

America’s outdated trade architecture is unsettling American workers, who are fed up with what they interpret as elitist rhetoric of professorial cost-benefit analysis. In the face of outsourcing, offshoring and currency manipulations, American workers believe that only foreign countries, major multinational corporations and the wealthiest one percent benefit from current trade policy. The problem is compounded as central banks intervene with negative interest rates and governments accumulate mountains of new debt, while economic growth languishes, real wages stagnate, and inequality rises.

(Follow link for full article)

Instead of furthering America’s national interest, Uncle's put his friends in charge of trade negotiations.

Every big decision made in the US is made by the multinationals. In most cases, their lobbyists write the legislation. This includes the WTO, intellectual property and patent legislation, health care, defense industries, telecommunications, argribusiness and - especially - banking and finance.

Quote:


Indeed it did. 70 years ago marked the transition to the post-war era. Prior to this, the US operated within a war economy, and prior to this, there was Roosevelt's New Deal.

The business of Amerika is not Amerika, it's business.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 15^th, 2016 at 6:08pm:


Actually, the opposite is now occurring. Cheap cars, scooters and mobile phones are being produced for the emerging economies, China and India. Capitalism is now working on cheap sources of energy through cheaper solar panels.

It's not so much that capitalism is consuming itself, it's that the world's economic axis is shifting in favour of the emerging markets. The sheer size of their populations make this a given.

Trump's suggestion that globalization does not favour America is far from true. Critics of globalization in the developing world have been pointing out that globalization is skewed towards America for years.

Take farming subsidies. The US doesn't like doing trade deals with countries that subsidize agriculture, but the US currently has the 2nd highest subsidies in the world, after the EU. Indeed, trade talks between America and the EU always get stuck on subsidies, each side demanding the other cuts back. 

The US and EU have negotiated exemptions in the WTO for their farming subsidies. All other countries must have totally free agriculture markets with no government subsidies. This places these countries in a unique position. They are able to sell cheaper agricultural products and dump these on the rest of the world, destroying foreign producers in the process, putting foreign farmers out of business.

This is just one area where the US does not operate on a level playing field, but its a big area. Agriculture is one of the biggest industries in the world. When Trump talks about doing better deals for America, he's talking about shafting the rest of the world - or attempting to. Why would other countries do business with the US on such a basis?

The economy is global. Smaller countries are free to turn their backs on America and negotiate with China and India. If the US attempts to screw them, as Trump suggests, this is exactly what will happen.

bogarde73 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 12:11pm:


In the Mid-Western, white male heartland Trump's going for, agriculture ties with manufacturing as the biggest industry there is. The farming sector has driven politics in these states for years.

The US has no way of getting heavy manufacturing back. Its been on the decline since the 1970s, when Europe and Japan entered the market with cheaper, better cars and electronic goods.

What can you do? You can try tax incentives (which the US already does). You can lower the minimum wage (which would decimate the US economy). You can impose tariffs (which would simply create a bidding war). In doing so, you'd have to opt out of the WTO, which favours US industry and patents anyway.

Since the 1990s, the US has shifted to producing intellectual property. Silicon Valley produces ideas. Big pharma and agribusiness produces patents. Fast food, soft drinks and clothing produces brands. The US hasn't focused on making things for the past two decades.

So not only is it not plausible to bring back all those industries, it's not in America's economic interest.

Say pretty please.

Marla wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 1:46pm:



Quote:


Quote:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2016 at 6:11pm:


Strange. An ex-military general on Trump’s payroll.

I wonder why he’d say such things about Hilary.

[url][/url]Marla wrote on Aug 18^th, 2016 at 12:39pm:


It seems that Boey’s gone rather quiet on the policies.

Mind you, I read Trump’s economic campaign policy speech last week. The entire speech was an attack on Hilary.

Oh, he did announce a couple of policies: "we’ll provide the detail a little later in the campaign."

I’m sure we’ll find out after we’ve voted for him.