Obama - Smart Free Trade Proponent (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

Host Kai Ryssdal sat down with President Barack Obama to talk about the future of international trade.

Here is their full conversation.

 

[cstu]

Quotes from the interview:

President Obama acknowledged Wednesday that some sectors of the U.S. economy will be harmed by a sweeping Pacific Rim free trade deal his administration is seeking, but he vowed that the benefits of the pact would far outweigh the costs.

"I've said there are losers. ... The question is, are there a lot more winners than losers? And the answer in this case is yes," Obama said during an interview with Kai Ryssdal, host of "Marketplace," the public radio show on business and the economy.

Obama emphasized that the United States would be foolish not to pursue more liberalized trade relations in Asia and elsewhere at a time when the global economy is becoming ever more intertwined.

"One of the basic premises for me in pursuing this is that we can't just draw a moat and pull up the drawbridge around our economy," the president said. "We are completely woven into the global economy."

The interview was one of several Obama granted Wednesday as he ramped up his push on trade with just over week remaining before the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a fast-track trade promotion authority bill approved by the Senate last month. The legislation would help the administration finalize the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and allow Obama to submit that accord to Congress for a vote on a specified timeline and without the possibility of lawmakers making amendments.

The president's trade initiative has faced fierce opposition from labor unions, environmental groups and Capitol Hill progressives, who fear that the TPP would lead to job losses and harm the economy. Anti-trade activists delivered a petition to lawmakers Wednesday with what they said were 2 million signatures on petitions opposing the deal.

"If there were ever a time a time in American history that we have got to stand up for the American worker and not for corporate greed, today is that day, and the TPP is that issue," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the White House in 2016, said during a news conference outside the Capitol with other progressive opponents of the trade deal. "The facts are very clear. The TPP follows in the footsteps of other disastrous trade agreements."

In the "Marketplace" interview, Obama did not specify which industries would be harmed by the trade deal. The benefits of the pact, he said, "doesn't mean that there is not going to be some impact on some sectors of the economy, by definition. ... It may be that as a consequence of the trade deal, there are particular markets, there are particular niche parts of the economy, where we've got to provide help to transition [workers] and to retool and adapt."

The president said he empathized with the concerns of those Democrats who are opposing his push, but he said that the answer to economic concerns is "not to shut off trade."

Rather, he said, "we've got to continually adapt; we've got to be nimble" in a fast-changing world that continues to be disrupted by new technologies.

"We are completely woven into the global economy," Obama said. "We are the hub to many, to a large extent, of the global economy. So, the question is, how do we construct a set of rules, but then, also, how do we make sure that we're adapting and using the incredible advantages we have to the best of our ability."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I didn't just start criticizing unfair trade deals like NAFTA because I started running for office - I'm doing it because I've seen what happens to a community when the factory closes down and the jobs move overseas. I began my career as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago, fighting joblessness and poverty in neighborhoods that were devastated when the local steel plant closed.

And it's because of this longstanding commitment to working families that I will not sign any trade agreement as President that does not have protections for our environment and protections for American workers.

We know that all of this must be done in a responsible way, without adding to the already obscene debt that has grown by four trillion dollars under George Bush. We cannot build our future on a credit card issued by the bank of China.

http://www.cfr.org/elections/obamas-speech-economy-nafta/p15612

President Obama said Wednesday that China could be open to eventually joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the massive trade deal the White House is hoping to get through Congress.

"They've already started putting out feelers about the possibilities of them participating at some point," the president told Kai Ryssdal of "Marketplace" from American Public Media.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/06/03/411778624/obama-says-china-could-join-already-huge-asia-trade-deal

This is also a backdoor SOPA allowing for restriction of online speech via alleged IP violations.

 

[cstu]

I consider it a good thing that he's changed his views after becoming President.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I consider it a good thing that he's changed his views after becoming President.

So now factories won't close, jobs won't move overseas, the damage from Nafta wasn't done, he's had a good long think on it, and all that was wrong when he said it then, but he's right now.

How about the IP provisions and free speech?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Jeesus, and China's joining?

And they won't publish the bill?

Feeling good about all this, are we?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

“I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America – and I never have,” he said.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_keeps_nafta_pressure_on.html

 

[IvanKaramazov]

“I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America – and I never have,” he said.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_keeps_nafta_pressure_on.html

Republicans have to pretend that they don't believe in evolution. Democrats have to pretend to oppose free trade. That's just how it goes.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

“I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America – and I never have,” he said.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_keeps_nafta_pressure_on.html

Republicans have to pretend that they don't believe in evolution. Democrats have to pretend to oppose free trade. That's just how it goes.

Meanwhile liberals, progressives, union members, and quite a lot of independents and conservatives too have a genuine problem with trade agreements like this. That was the Perot coalition, and both parties may be playing with fire here.

At least publish the bill.

 

[Slapdash]

This deal isn't about free trade, it is about enforcing restrictive IP practices in other nations.

Also, I think Obama is wrong when he says the question is about whether there are more winners than losers. I think k it is about whether the winners compensate the losers...

 

[IvanKaramazov]

“I don’t think NAFTA has been good for America – and I never have,” he said.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/obama_keeps_nafta_pressure_on.html

Republicans have to pretend that they don't believe in evolution. Democrats have to pretend to oppose free trade. That's just how it goes.

Meanwhile liberals, progressives, union members, and quite a lot of independents and conservatives too have a genuine problem with trade agreements like this. That was the Perot coalition, and both parties may be playing with fire here.

At least publish the bill.

Yes, but Ross Perot was an idiot. He got his ### handed to him by Al Gore of all people on this issue.

 

[cstu]

This deal isn't about free trade, it is about enforcing restrictive IP practices in other nations.

Also, I think Obama is wrong when he says the question is about whether there are more winners than losers.

I think k it is about whether the winners compensate the losers...

His thinking is like mine - if you increase the overall pie for the winners at the same time as you increase the compensation for the losers then everyone wins.

As he said, that's how America was built.

 

[Slapdash]

This deal isn't about free trade, it is about enforcing restrictive IP practices in other nations.

Also, I think Obama is wrong when he says the question is about whether there are more winners than losers.

I think k it is about whether the winners compensate the losers...

His thinking is like mine - if you increase the overall pie for the winners at the same time as you increase the compensation for the losers then everyone wins.

As he said, that's how America was built.

Compensate them how?

I still reject the notion that increasing the pie for holders of copyright and other monopolies is beneficial. Free trade is beneficial, but there are things we should do to ameliorate its negative impacts. Expanding our copyright monopolies overseas only benefits the holders of those copyrights, which are compensated well beyond the point needed to induce innovation.

Still, if these deals are defensible, why are they being negotiated in secret by corporations and bureaucrats without the ability for the public to weigh in?

 

[jon_mx]

Bush's policies were horrible and responsible for all our problems. Well until he became president and adapted them. But when Bush did them, they sucked.

 

[timschochet]

This deal isn't about free trade, it is about enforcing restrictive IP practices in other nations.

This is interesting. I've heard this stated several times by progressives opposed to this deal over the last few weeks, but I haven't heard it explained (nor confirmed by the facts of the trade deal, which admittedly are hard to get.)I don't quite get it.

Normally I am in favor of free trade. I continue to believe that long term NAFTA and GATT will be positive for us, though there have certainly been problems along the way. I agree with Obama's rhetoric on this. But I'd like to know the specifics and especially about the issue you stated here.

 

[NCCommish]

This deal isn't about free trade, it is about enforcing restrictive IP practices in other nations.

Also, I think Obama is wrong when he says the question is about whether there are more winners than losers.

I think k it is about whether the winners compensate the losers...

His thinking is like mine - if you increase the overall pie for the winners at the same time as you increase the compensation for the losers then everyone wins.

As he said, that's how America was built.

This increases the share of the pie the top gets the rest of us get ****. Well except for the pollution, free speech issues and all the other ways we'll get screwed.

 

[cstu]

This deal isn't about free trade, it is about enforcing restrictive IP practices in other nations.

Also, I think Obama is wrong when he says the question is about whether there are more winners than losers.

I think k it is about whether the winners compensate the losers...

His thinking is like mine - if you increase the overall pie for the winners at the same time as you increase the compensation for the losers then everyone wins.

As he said, that's how America was built.

This increases the share of the pie the top gets the rest of us get ****. Well except for the pollution, free speech issues and all the other ways we'll get screwed.

The better the country does, the more money there is to pay for universal healthcare and free college to students.

I've read the IP section of the document and don't get why people are up in arms over it.

 

[cstu]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

 

[timschochet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

 

[Slapdash]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

Yep, his legacy of expanding the interests of US based (but not taxed) companies is pretty damn solid.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

Yep, his legacy of expanding the interests of US based (but not taxed) companies is pretty damn solid.

Companies that are going to hire a whole lot of people as a result. Companies that are going to reduce prices for the American consumer.

 

[Slapdash]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

Yep, his legacy of expanding the interests of US based (but not taxed) companies is pretty damn solid.

Companies that are going to hire a whole lot of people as a result. Companies that are going to reduce prices for the American consumer.

Extending monopolies of rent-seeking corporations does not do either of these things.

 

[NCCommish]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

Yep, his legacy of expanding the interests of US based (but not taxed) companies is pretty damn solid.

Companies that are going to hire a whole lot of people as a result. Companies that are going to reduce prices for the American consumer.

Calling bull#### and pointing to the destruction of the middle class by these companies and their political lackeys as proof.

 

[cstu]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

Yep, his legacy of expanding the interests of US based (but not taxed) companies is pretty damn solid.

Companies that are going to hire a whole lot of people as a result. Companies that are going to reduce prices for the American consumer.

Calling bull#### and pointing to the destruction of the middle class by these companies and their political lackeys as proof.

I'm calling bull#### on the destruction of the middle class:

The median income has gone up 18.8% (inflation-adjusted) for households with two earners and 3.7% for households with one earner since 1987. Link (Table H-12)

 

[Johnnymac]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-poised-for-a-major-trade-win-burnishing-his-foreign-policy-legacy/2015/06/24/e940c6fa-1a77-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

Yep, his legacy of expanding the interests of US based (but not taxed) companies is pretty damn solid.

Companies that are going to hire a whole lot of people as a result. Companies that are going to reduce prices for the American consumer.

Calling bull#### and pointing to the destruction of the middle class by these companies and their political lackeys as proof.

I'm calling bull#### on the destruction of the middle class:

The median income has gone up 18.8% (inflation-adjusted) for households with two earners and 3.7% for households with one earner since 1987. Link (Table H-12)

I see the link but I just don't believe it.