Obama position in regards to trade issues

[ray245]

It seems to me that Obama is against certain free trade agreement issues.

I don't claim to be knowlwedgeable in regards to many economic stuff, so perhaps someone can explain to me what harm/benefit does Obama's policy and stand in NAFTA brings.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/20/magazin ... 2008062308

[Coyote]

The traditional Democratic Party stance has been that free trade allows business to ship too much, too easily, overseas. Labor is one thing that gets outsourced. Many workers in Third World countries work for afar less cost than American workers do, because of a variety of factors-- mostly involving lax environmental standards, poor worker health care, low pay, long hours without extra pay, few if any breaks, lower standards of living, and so on. That makes goods made overseas far cheaper than goods made by Americans.

The way we make this competitive is by taxes and tariffs on goods brought in from overseas. It imposes a fee on imports that brings the cost more in line with what American-made goods cost. Many consider this unfair, and push for free trade, where taxes and tariffs are done away with.

The unintended consequence is that no one pays for the more expensive American-made goods, and so American companies either go out of business or move overseas, and American workers are left jobless.

The Democrats are generally pro-Union and pro-Protectionist trade policy; the Republicans (more closely allied with business) want things to be as cheap as possible, even if it means risking American jobs. True, some could argue that this means that overseas workers get a lot of business and make a lot of money, lifting them out of crushing poverty; others argue that the workers see little of the money because it is vacuumed up by the business execs overseas, and the workers trade crushing poverty for crushing working conditions with some pay.

Recent trends for Democrats has been to be more open to Free Trade, but tying business operations overseas to things like meeting environmantal and worker safety codes, making overseas labor as expensive as local labor, but that would involve the compliance of both the overseas company and in some cases the overseas government, so it's not an easy way around the impasse.

[ray245]

Coyote and othe members here....so what is your personal opinion in regards to free trade?

Perhaps how it can benefit or harm the global economy will be nice?

As a person not from the US, I want to see if my support of Obama is justified in regards to the economy.

After all, every major economy in the world is tied up with the US...and of course I would want a scenario where my country can benefit from an Obama presidency..

[Big Orange]

In that online Neoconservative funny farm, Little Green Footballs, are leaping about over ONN's sarcastic satirical video about shipping over manufacturing jobs to China and Eastern Europe. Outsourcing has it's advantages and individual companies have little say in the matter concerning corporate peer pressure, but if you keep cutting corners to save money input and maximise profits, you get what you pay for (for example the much loathed Indian call centres and lead Fisher Price toys).

[The Spartan]

Ray, keep in mind that there is more than just trade policy in play here. Part of trade between nations involves diplomacy which the neo-conservatives that McCain is pandering consider to be little more than "Do what I tell you to do." On the other hand, an Obama administration is more likely to be open to negotiations on trade issues than a McCain one.

Further, if McCain screws over the country like I suspect (know) he will then Americans won't be able to afford goods made in your country anyways. While the key here is striking a balance between free trade, human rights and so forth, in the end the President must try to do what's best for Americans since, well, that's his job.

[Ma Deuce]

As a person not from the US, I want to see if my support of Obama is justified in regards to the economy.

Irrelevant. It's a government's duty to look out for it's own citizens and institutions first, since they are the ones who pay it's income. If protecting the jobs and livelihoods of your own citizens has a negative impact on those in other countries, then so be it.

[ray245]

Ray, keep in mind that there is more than just trade policy in play here. Part of trade between nations involves diplomacy which the neo-conservatives that McCain is pandering consider to be little more than "Do what I tell you to do." On the other hand, an Obama administration is more likely to be open to negotiations on trade issues than a McCain one.

Further, if McCain screws over the country like I suspect (know) he will then Americans won't be able to afford goods made in your country anyways. While the key here is striking a balance between free trade, human rights and so forth, in the end the President must try to do what's best for Americans since, well, that's his job.

I know that the American president is supposed do his job for americans...

However, in a globalised world where the actions of the USA affects the rest of the world, and as an foreign observor, I feel inclined to throw my support towards a US canidate that benefits my nation.

Well...one can always support a US president canidate in a less subtle ways in the age of the internet. Hell...one can simply support a canidate by buying books written by a politican.

Personally, I can't stand a US president that proclaim it is doing everything for the benefit of everyone while screwing everyon else upside down.

For instance, the actions that the US government make in regards to their economy, even though tons of people worldwide can see the problem long ago. It is frustrating when everyone else in the world can see the problem, while tons of americans don't and proceed to drag the rest of the world down with it.

Instance where me as an foreign obersever can more or less tell where this is heading, yet unable to actually save the world as a whole.

The actions of the United states affect the whole world, yet the rest of the world cannot save itself from the US doing something stupid that wil harm everyone.

After all, Obama is the one that managed to convince me to support the idea of US pulling troops out of Iraq.

Before that, I feel perfectly happy to let the US military rot in Iraq, especially after the support that the American public has towards the war at the start.

[Darth Wong]

As a person not from the US, I want to see if my support of Obama is justified in regards to the economy.

Irrelevant. It's a government's duty to look out for it's own citizens and institutions first, since they are the ones who pay it's income. If protecting the jobs and livelihoods of your own citizens has a negative impact on those in other countries, then so be it.

That depends on the level of harm. Taken to its extreme, this basic line of thinking justifies foreign wars of resource exploitation, for example.

[The Spartan]

Personally, I can't stand a US president that proclaim it is doing everything for the benefit of everyone while screwing everyon else upside down.

I think this sums up what you're getting at. Let me respond by pointing out that one's actions are more important than one's words.

Bush and McCain both speak as though they want to benefit people but in the end screw everyone over except their rich friends. Obama on the other hand, while far from perfect, has supported actions and voted in such a manner that his actions speak to wanting to help, rather than, harm both the US and other nations, in so far as that is possible.

[ray245]

As a person not from the US, I want to see if my support of Obama is justified in regards to the economy.

Irrelevant. It's a government's duty to look out for it's own citizens and institutions first, since they are the ones who pay it's income. If protecting the jobs and livelihoods of your own citizens has a negative impact on those in other countries, then so be it.

That depends on the level of harm. Taken to its extreme, this basic line of thinking justifies foreign wars of resource exploitation, for example.

Exactly, many of us here isn't an american citizen, so ideally, we will seek for a win-win sistuation, where both sides can have benefits.

However, at the same time, I am not a american citizen, which means I will defend my national interest over another country's national interest.

Why do you think china is even buying up the american debt anyway? A strong econmic ties lower the possibility of a war between two sides.

[Ma Deuce]

That depends on the level of harm. Taken to its extreme, this basic line of thinking justifies foreign wars of resource exploitation, for example.

I'm referring to domestic policies however, and despite the foreign reach of trade, I tend to regard it as essentially being a domestic policy given the immediate and direct effects on has on the country's domestic economy by it's fundamental nature.

[ray245]

That depends on the level of harm. Taken to its extreme, this basic line of thinking justifies foreign wars of resource exploitation, for example.

I'm referring to domestic policies however, and despite the foreign reach of trade, I tend to regard it as essentially being a domestic policy given the immediate and direct effects on has on the country's domestic economy by it's fundamental nature.

In a globalised economy, whatever dumb actions that the US wants to take will affect the rest of the world.

Often the rest of the world get stuck in a sistuation where more people around the world can see the problem with an american economic policy, and they know that such a policy will affect BOTH the american society, and the rest of the world in the long term.

And what is the worst thing? They cannot affect the decision of the united states, and is forced to see every bad thing they predicted becoming a reality...

[Coyote]

Ray, I am a Democrat but I also believe that we should be open-minded about Free Trade. I am mostly in agreement with the "Free Trade with Strings Attached", so doing away with taxes and tariffs but tying overseas business to environmental and worker concerns. I think that protectionist trade practices may help American workers, but only for a while-- it's like trying to draw an economic wall around the world and besieging ourselves inside.

Overseas competition has a lot of advantages and benefits, IMO, and in my personal world view those benefits are able to be interpreted across a wide spectrum of changes.

For example, competing with foreign workers means that US income for labor will probably go down a bit, and our economic and lifestayle expectations will also have to go down as well. Since our current lifestyle is unnaturally high compared to the rest of the world, and our consumption levels are unsustainable, we need to calm our expectations.

At the same time, foreign workers will see more jobs and increased pay, safety, and environmental standards. I feel that this helps America, just in a roundabout way, because when people feel that they are being treated fairly there is less resentment to the US. That, overall, provides a gain in good (or at least improved) relations, which of course also means less likelihood of having to spend on future security or stability operations (which may or may not include military interventions, etc).

But there's always a problem somewhere, these things are never simple. For example, there'll always be a world leader that meets our demands about pay and environmental awareness, but is also a brutal abuser of human rights. Or there may be a dictator who is in a strategic position somewhere and we feel we need his support, so we let him get by with a contract because we want something else that is more important (a base, a listening station, help with a more troublesome neighbor, etc).

I think that Obama's willingness to engage others diplomatically is helpful, not just economically but militarily-- the best way to win a war, IMO, is to get what you want over the negotiating table first, before the military ever has to be brought into play.

[Ma Deuce]

A strong econmic ties lower the possibility of a war between two sides.

Funny, people said the same thing before World War I: France and Germany were each others biggest trading partners, and look how that turned out. Of course, war between the US and China is unlikely for a very different reason: the fact that both possess nuclear weapons.

In a globalised economy, whatever dumb actions that the US wants to take will affect the rest of the world.

Then perhaps it is time for globalization to die (if the energy crisis is as bad as some think, then that will happen anyway). From a US perspective, the rich reap all the benefits from unrestricted global trade while the middle and working class bear all the burden, all the while eroding the country's industrial and economic sovereignty. Sure consumer goods are cheaper, but if you're out of work or scrimping just to make end's meet because your job got outsourced, then you can't afford them at any price anyway. The only kind of free trade that is truly mutually beneficial is in discreet blocs with neighboring countries, such as the EU or NAFTA.

Obama has backed off his previous rhetoric about NAFTA, so I have little concern about how his policies will affect Canada.

Often the rest of the world get stuck in a sistuation where more people around the world can see the problem with an american economic policy, and they know that such a policy will affect BOTH the american society, and the rest of the world in the long term.

Deal with it. The "rest of the world" is getting far too rich off America's unsustainable, self-destructive trade deficit to have any right to complain if the US decides to take action to protect it's own economy. For instance, if the US suddenly found a silver bullet to rid itself of foreign oil dependence, would Veuezuela, Saudi Arabia etc. be in any position to balk if the US no longer bought oil from them, even if it wrecked their own economies?

Look, I'm not suggesting cutting off all trade overseas, but there is no way American manufacturing workers can possibly compete directly with cheap third-world labor, so sufficient duties must be enacted to ensure that lower foreign wages are a complete non-factor in the cost of products. The US should also not hesitate to institute reciprocal tariffs: if one of your trading partners has a given tariff on an item you export, then you should place exactly the same tariff on similar items they export to you.

[Guardsman Bass]

Often the rest of the world get stuck in a sistuation where more people around the world can see the problem with an american economic policy, and they know that such a policy will affect BOTH the american society, and the rest of the world in the long term.

Deal with it. The "rest of the world" is getting far too rich off America's unsustainable, self-destructive trade deficit to have any right to complain if the US decides to take action to protect it's own economy. For instance, if the US suddenly found a silver bullet to rid itself of foreign oil dependence, would Veuezuela, Saudi Arabia etc. be in any position to balk if the US no longer bought oil from them, even if it wrecked their own economies?

Look, I'm not suggesting cutting off all trade overseas, but there is no way American manufacturing workers can possibly compete directly with cheap third-world labor, so sufficient duties must be enacted to ensure that lower foreign wages are a complete non-factor in the cost of products. The US should also not hesitate to institute reciprocal tariffs: if one of your trading partners has a given tariff on an item you export, then you should place exactly the same tariff on similar items they export to you.

I bolded that part because it is ridiculous - labor costs have always been a factor in trade, and if you are going to try to make that irrelevant, then you might as well simply throw up a solid tariff wall and call it quits.

Even then, minor fluctuations in labor costs can have large consequences. One of the issues, if I recall from reading the book Has Globalization Gone Too Far? by economist Dani Rodrik, was not just cheap labor from the Third World, but greater trade and mobility within the First World. Or, to put it simply, there's a larger labor pool competing for jobs within the First World, which makes the labor supply in each country more elastic (meaning it's more responsive to rises or drops in wages).

[Stormbringer]

I don't claim to be knowlwedgeable in regards to many economic stuff, so perhaps someone can explain to me what harm/benefit does Obama's policy and stand in NAFTA brings.

The NAFTA thing is a flat out pander based lie. He's extremely unlikely to back out of NAFTA and probably couldn't even if he wanted to; remember, it was a Democratic president that signed it. By now it's become a part of the way America does business.

Obama is a Democrat and blue collar schlubs are the Democrats fundies. They need to butter them up even if both sides know it for a lie.

Overall, I don't think Obama stands to do much damage to the first world nations. By and large, the Democrats aren't looking to go after nations with wages and work environments like the US. We don't do too badly their and there is no "they're stealing our jobs" impulses aimed that way for the most part.

The countries that have little to no regulation are more likely to find themselves in trouble. The Democrats in general are going to be under a huge amount of pressure from the blue collar base to tighten up on cut rate imports from the third world.

[ExarKun]

Coyote and othe members here....so what is your personal opinion in regards to free trade?

Perhaps how it can benefit or harm the global economy will be nice?

As a person not from the US, I want to see if my support of Obama is justified in regards to the economy.

After all, every major economy in the world is tied up with the US...and of course I would want a scenario where my country can benefit from an Obama presidency..

First off, you need to know that if McCain is elected, no matter what Obama's stance is in regard to the economy, your country will be worse off. Obama is the candidate to support if you're a foreigner. Speaking of which, no offense, but what does your support mean to Obama? You're not going to vote, so it doesn't really matter. Again, I don't mean to cause offense, I just hear this all the time

[Adrian Laguna]

That depends on the level of harm. Taken to its extreme, this basic line of thinking justifies foreign wars of resource exploitation, for example.

Only if that war actually results in a net gain for the populace, which is far from a given, since war is an expensive business. It's generally cheaper and more efficient to just trade for what you want.

[ray245]

Coyote and othe members here....so what is your personal opinion in regards to free trade?

Perhaps how it can benefit or harm the global economy will be nice?

As a person not from the US, I want to see if my support of Obama is justified in regards to the economy.

After all, every major economy in the world is tied up with the US...and of course I would want a scenario where my country can benefit from an Obama presidency..

First off, you need to know that if McCain is elected, no matter what Obama's stance is in regard to the economy, your country will be worse off. Obama is the candidate to support if you're a foreigner. Speaking of which, no offense, but what does your support mean to Obama? You're not going to vote, so it doesn't really matter. Again, I don't mean to cause offense, I just hear this all the time

Of course I cannot vote...but a simple issue such as buying Obama's books help right?

Personally, I don't want McCain in office...although I just want to understand more about Obama's foreign policy.

[Covenant]

Coyote and othe members here....so what is your personal opinion in regards to free trade?

Perhaps how it can benefit or harm the global economy will be nice?

As a person not from the US, I want to see if my support of Obama is justified in regards to the economy.

After all, every major economy in the world is tied up with the US...and of course I would want a scenario where my country can benefit from an Obama presidency..

First off, you need to know that if McCain is elected, no matter what Obama's stance is in regard to the economy, your country will be worse off. Obama is the candidate to support if you're a foreigner. Speaking of which, no offense, but what does your support mean to Obama? You're not going to vote, so it doesn't really matter. Again, I don't mean to cause offense, I just hear this all the time

Of course I cannot vote...but a simple issue such as buying Obama's books help right?

Personally, I don't want McCain in office...although I just want to understand more about Obama's foreign policy.

Not to sound like a tool, but have you gone to his website? There's a lot of issues there all spelled out. You can write a mail in too, you'll get some poor staffer looking through the policy objectives and sending you the right email response, but they're generally good at giving you the information you're seeking. If they think you're a voter then it's worth their time to explain.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

In a globalised economy, whatever dumb actions that the US wants to take will affect the rest of the world.

Often the rest of the world get stuck in a sistuation where more people around the world can see the problem with an american economic policy, and they know that such a policy will affect BOTH the american society, and the rest of the world in the long term.

And what is the worst thing? They cannot affect the decision of the united states, and is forced to see every bad thing they predicted becoming a reality...

Look, just in case the Singaporean papers have given you an erroneous impression that "Singapore is da greatest", do remember that on the scale of things, Singapore is relatively insignificant. The FTA signed with us hasn't done us a fantastic effect the government has made it out to be, chiefly because we already lost the bulk of manufacturing overseas, and whatever is left is services, which the government could easily get by by lowering taxes to attract people to come, which the government has done.

I don't see a problem with the US getting a little protectionist to defend its own people and economy. Our government doesn't do much, but the United States happens to be a more genuine democracy than that sham of a democracy we have. The US President's primary focus is his people first, then the rest of the world.

[ray245]

In a globalised economy, whatever dumb actions that the US wants to take will affect the rest of the world.

Often the rest of the world get stuck in a sistuation where more people around the world can see the problem with an american economic policy, and they know that such a policy will affect BOTH the american society, and the rest of the world in the long term.

And what is the worst thing? They cannot affect the decision of the united states, and is forced to see every bad thing they predicted becoming a reality...

Look, just in case the Singaporean papers have given you an erroneous impression that "Singapore is da greatest", do remember that on the scale of things, Singapore is relatively insignificant. The FTA signed with us hasn't done us a fantastic effect the government has made it out to be, chiefly because we already lost the bulk of manufacturing overseas, and whatever is left is services, which the government could easily get by by lowering taxes to attract people to come, which the government has done.

I don't see a problem with the US getting a little protectionist to defend its own people and economy. Our government doesn't do much, but the United States happens to be a more genuine democracy than that sham of a democracy we have. The US President's primary focus is his people first, then the rest of the world.

Of course I am not saying singapore is the greatest.

However, even the smallest actions the US takes do have an effect on singapore's economy.

For instance, the collaspe of the Lehman brothers do affect the stocks price in singapore, and if the US falls into a recession, singapore is bound to be affected.

Personally as a singapore, I do have more stake in singapore than an american.

Is it wrong to say I want singapore to benefit as a singaporean? I mean come on Fingolfin_Noldor, I know that you are not happy with singapore as a whole, but I want to find issues that can benefit singapore first before the US.

Stop thinking as an american, and think as a foreigner.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Of course I am not saying singapore is the greatest.

However, even the smallest actions the US takes do have an effect on singapore's economy.

For instance, the collaspe of the Lehman brothers do affect the stocks price in singapore, and if the US falls into a recession, singapore is bound to be affected.

Personally as a singapore, I do have more stake in singapore than an american.

Is it wrong to say I want singapore to benefit as a singaporean? I mean come on Fingolfin_Noldor, I know that you are not happy with singapore as a whole, but I want to find issues that can benefit singapore first before the US.

Stop thinking as an american, and think as a foreigner.

So? Quite frankly, what you are saying is that you don't give a swat to foreign issues and only care about local issues and how you are affected. How and why Singapore is so easily affected by the US economy is largely how our economy is structured. Let's be frank here, the US President can causally forget Singapore exists, and the US will survive, while we won't. Accept that damn fact, and move on, or be as syncopantic as our politicians and civil servants have been and pick up whatever crumbs we can get. Which by the way, has been our foreign policy for the most part.

Former Indonesian President Habibe wasn't wrong that we are a fucking insignificant red dot, by the way.

[ray245]

Of course I am not saying singapore is the greatest.

However, even the smallest actions the US takes do have an effect on singapore's economy.

For instance, the collaspe of the Lehman brothers do affect the stocks price in singapore, and if the US falls into a recession, singapore is bound to be affected.

Personally as a singapore, I do have more stake in singapore than an american.

Is it wrong to say I want singapore to benefit as a singaporean? I mean come on Fingolfin_Noldor, I know that you are not happy with singapore as a whole, but I want to find issues that can benefit singapore first before the US.

Stop thinking as an american, and think as a foreigner.

So? Quite frankly, what you are saying is that you don't give a swat to foreign issues and only care about local issues and how you are affected. How and why Singapore is so easily affected by the US economy is largely how our economy is structured. Let's be frank here, the US President can causally forget Singapore exists, and the US will survive, while we won't. Accept that damn fact, and move on, or be as syncopantic as our politicians and civil servants have been and pick up whatever crumbs we can get. Which by the way, has been our foreign policy for the most part.

Former Indonesian President Habibe wasn't wrong that we are a fucking insignificant red dot, by the way.

Please, I don't give a swat about foreign issues? I am simply saying I want to see what is in singapore's best interest that's all.

Come on, when you have two person running for the president, one of them is bound to benefit singapore more than the other.

I am simply looking at the policy of those running for the presidency, and see which one can benefit singapore MORE.

[Master of Cards]

-snip-

So what is wrong with an American President dong what is best for America that what is best for Singapore.