Obama voices commitment to S.Korea trade agreement

[Lasher]

Source: Associated Press

SEOUL, South Korea — President Barack Obama says he is committed to resolving issues that have stalled a free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea.

Obama said Thursday in Seoul that expanding trade ties would have economic and strategic benefits for both countries. He said Congress must recognize that U.S. trade with South Korea doesn't have the same imbalances as with other Asian nations.

A trade agreement was signed in 2007 by the two governments under previous leaders, but has not been ratified by Congress.

Obama spoke at a joint news conference with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak (lee myuhng bahk).


Read more: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/6728177.html

---

Oh great, that's just what we need. Another 'free' trade agreement. Congressional Democrats blocked this one when Bush tried to sell it, now Obama's talking it up.

[pampango]

1. As long as it contains language that trade will be reasonably balanced

(like our "free" trade with Canada and Australia and not like our "unfree" trade with China), go for it. If we sell them as much as they sell us, trade should be good for both countries.

[Lasher]

2. I don't trust our government to deliver a good 'free' trade agreement.

These 'free' trade agreements have not been good for the US middle class. More of the same seems a bad idea to me.

[pampango]

3. What hasn't been good for our middle class are regressive taxation, lax market regulation,

a "holey" social safety net, and declining unionization.

The EU has more "free trade" than the US (including with Mexico and South Korea and is negotiating with Canada and India). By definition each member country has "free trade" with the other 26 countries in the EU, as well as with all the other countries with which the EU has free trade agreements. Despite all this trade EU citizens do quite well because they live in progressive societies that provide the things that our society doesn't (mentioned above).

In 2007 and 2008 we exported $35 billion worth of stuff to South Korea each year, but imported $48 billion worth from them. If a new trade agreement with them brought these figures more into balance, that would be a good thing.

If you don't trust our government to negotiate international agreements, so be it. Obama campaigned on and, so far, seems to be governing on the idea that negotiations and diplomacy with other countries are preferable to unilateral, often military, action on the part of the US which Bush was so fond of (like withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty). We don't have to approve every agreement that Obama negotiates and can modify or reject those we don't like, but shouldn't expect him to stop negotiating just because we may not trust him.

[Lasher]

12. And if the US/South Korean balance of trade worsens, that would be a bad thing.

It's true that laissez-faire capitalism and regressive taxation have been bad for the middle class. So has offshoring.

You are correct to say that Obama was honest during the campaign about his support for free trade agreements. So I'm not surprised to see him endorse the US/Korean free trade agreement. But that doesn't make it a good idea.

I agree that diplomacy with other countries is preferable to the Bush administration's neoconservative dreams of world conquest, and I'm not suggesting he should not negotiate global warming or arms control treaties. My objection is more specific; I favor a moratorium on new free trade agreements, as one measure to address the decline of the US middle class.

Free trade agreements encourage offshoring, particularly when per-capita GDP between two countries is significantly different. Ours is 47,440 in Geary-Khamis dollars. Theirs is 27,692. More lost jobs and more downward pressure on US median wages would not be a good thing, particularly in our current economic climate.

It seems you think we should judge each potential free trade agreement on its own merits. If that is the case then I would ask you to reflect on NAFTA. Back in 1994 we weren't (at least universally) aware the treaty would be responsible for widening balance of trade deficits with Canada and Mexico, and the loss of nearly 900,000 jobs. 78% of these losses were were relatively-high paying manufacturing jobs. I don't think we'll be made any more aware of disadvantages concerning future free trade agreements.

Since NAFTA went into effect, 68 percent of employers in manufacturing, communication and wholesale/distribution threatened to move all or part of the plant during union organizing drives. Fifteen percent of employers followed through on threats and shut down all or part of the plant within two years, triple the rate found by researchers who examined post-election plant closing rates in the late 1980s, before NAFTA took effect.

The most reliable way to prevent similar ramifications in the future is to stop entering into any more free trade agreements. But if you hate unions and think the average US worker is getting paid too much, then the KORUS FTA is for you.

[Romulox]

16. Actually, the President was NOT honest regarding his stance on trade during the campaign!

While campaigning in Ohio, Mr. Obama has harshly criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement, which many Ohioans blame for an exodus of jobs. He agreed last week at a debate with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that the United States should consider leaving the pact if it could not be renegotiated.

On Monday, a memorandum surfaced, obtained by The Associated Press, showing that Austan D. Goolsbee, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago who is Mr. Obama’s senior economic policy adviser, met officials last month at the Canadian consulate in Chicago.

According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama’s protectionist stand on the trail was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html

Remember???

[Lasher]

40. My opinion is based on what he's said.

But you have a good point, Professor Goolsbee was prophetic in this.

Obama Reverses Campaign Pledge to Renegotiate NAFTA
August 11, 2009

President Obama has wrapped up a two-day visit to Mexico for talks with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The three leaders met in Guadalajara to discuss issues including immigration reform, trade, Mexico’s drug war, the crisis in Honduras, and the swine flu outbreak. It was Obama’s first official summit under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. On the campaign trail, Obama had promised to open up NAFTA to renegotiations. But he’s backed off that pledge since taking office, blaming the global economic meltdown.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/11/obama_reverses_campaign_pledge_to_renegotiate

Concerning his general position on free trade agreements, here's what he said in a June 15, 2008 speech in Flint, Michigan:

New challenges have emerged, from China and India, Eastern Europe and Brazil. Jobs and industries can move to any country with an internet connection and willing workers. Michigan’s children will grow up facing competition not just from California or South Carolina, but also from Beijing and Bangalore.

There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries. I disagree. Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off.

Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no doubt that America can compete--and succeed--in the 21st century. And I know as well that more than anything else, success will depend not on our government, but on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of the American people.

***

If we continue to let our trade policy be dictated by special interests, then American workers will continue to be undermined, and public support for robust trade will continue to erode. That might make sense to the Washington lobbyists who run Senator McCain’s campaign, but it won’t help our nation compete. Allowing subsidized and unfairly traded products to flood our markets is not free trade.

Go here for the above and other Obama pre-election quotes regarding free trade.

In the above, when he says, "...public support for robust trade will continue to erode", he's talking about me. I believe foreign trade is a good thing but 'free trade' is bad. My sentiment is shared by a majority of Americans, but KORUS FTA will probably be shoved up our asses anyway, thanks mainly to the same corporatists who did so much to bless us with our current free trade agreements.

Go here for a list of poll responses regarding international trade.

[pampango]

17. Thanks for the detailed response. I agree that we should judge each fta on its own merits.

I know they call these "free trade agreements" but since this one still includes restrictions and tariffs (though lower and phased-out in some cases), it's not really "free trade" (whatever that really is) and has the potential to reduce the trade imbalance between South Korea and the US, if it is structured properly.

As you probably know, we have "free trade agreements" with 17 countries. Of these 17 we have a trade surplus with 10 of them and a trade deficit with 7 of them. Our trade deficits are much worse with the other countries of the world (particularly China, of course) with whom we do not have a "free trade" agreement. One of the reasons is that our tariffs are often lower than other countries, so that when we negotiate an FTA the other country's tariffs are reduced to the point that our exports increase and they begin to import more from us than we import from them.

I also believe that the much of the damage to our manufacturing sector is self-inflicted. Because the countries of the EU are so progressive in terms of their health care, taxation, safety net, market regulation, and unionization, the EU is able to be the number one manufacturing exporter in the world. It exports more manufactured goods than China, even though China has 3 times the population and in spite of the fact that the EU has a high-wage, high-benefit economy.

We can do the same and successfully compete with the rest of the world if we change what our country has become (regressive taxation, no national health care, porous safety net, lax market regulation, and declining union membership) rather than sticking our fingers in the dikes of trade problems we have with so many countries in the world. We (like the EU) will always have trade problems from time to time, but the large number we have are a symptom of a larger disease - a seriously non-progressive society rather than a disease itself.

I suppose you could make the case that we need to restrict our trade agreements (even as the EU is expanding theirs), while we seriously work on national health care, progressive taxation, an effective social safety net and market regulation, and union empowerment. Sometimes you need to treat the symptoms at the same time that you are curing the underlying disease. :)

[Romulox]

19. Fact check. Which currently extant "free trade" agreement has improved the US balance of trade

with the counterparty (in the US' favor!)?

I'll take my answer off air! :hi:

[pampango]

22. I'll have to respectfully decline your request to do the multi-year, multi-country research which

you suggest. You'll have to provide your own answer for this one, but please do share it; particularly if it supports your argument.

Suffice to say for now that "free trade" agreements are not walking disasters if, in fact, we maintain a positive balance of trade with most of our partners, even though we are richer than they are and can better afford to buy their stuff than they can buy ours.

[Romulox]

26. That you do not know (and do not care!) considerably weakens your argument

wouldn't you say? :hi:

[pampango]

30. In your eyes, perhaps, but I have the feeling that was destined to happen anyway.

:)

[Lasher]

39. Not just in his eyes.

You said,

"As you probably know, we have "free trade agreements" with 17 countries. Of these 17 we have a trade surplus with 10 of them and a trade deficit with 7 of them."

Then Romulox challenged this assertion by saying,

"Which currently extant 'free trade' agreement has improved the US balance of trade with the counterparty (in the US' favor!)?"

You staked your ground. Defend it or surrender.

[Romulox]

7. You've admitted many times that don't feel any responsibility to US workers...

So your opiniion on "balanced" trade should be taken in that context. :hi:

[OhioChick]

9. Good Point.

;)

[pampango]

11. Any comment on the content of my posts in this thread? Or are you content to provide "context"?

BTW, you mischaracterize my position a little, but I'm sure you know that. Or maybe it's just been a little while since you've posted your assessment of me and you're a little rusty at summarizing it. If you go back over some of our previous exchanges, I'm sure you'll find the flaw. (To give you credit, the way you say it is very effective.) ;)

[Romulox]

13. The demonstrable effect of so-called "free trade" has been a lowering of the standard of living

here in the US.

You are aware of this fact. This is all that need be said as to your posts--all the rest is a bizarre sort of utopian corporatism.

[pampango]

21. You blame "free trade" for all of our ills. I place the blame elsewhere, as you know.

The EU prospers with more "free trade" than we do and somehow survives quite nicely. The big difference, obviously, is that European society is much more progressive than ours.

My impression is that you think that our trade problems, caused by "free trade", are the disease that has caused the decline in our living standards. I think that our trade problems are a symptom of the real disease which is a seriously non-progressive society. The EU does very well with their high-wage, high-benefit economy and with more international trade than us, because they have a progressive society that enables them to compete successfully.

[Romulox]

27. Absolute nonsense. You advocate for a policy with measurably DISASTEROUS results

with apparently no concern for these results (see above). :silly:

[pampango]

31. And you focus on the symptom and ignore the disease. If you deal with the disease, as the EU has,

the symptoms tend to resolve themselves.

:silly:

[Zhade]

38. It's not just about balance of trade. What about workers' rights?

NT!

[OhioChick]

4. More free trade agreements...when will they learn? n/t

[ChromeFoundry]

5. great. let's get rid of even more jobs. n/t

[Romulox]

6. More Bush era policies promoted by Obama... nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. Free Trade with an Equal - what an absolutely horrifying idea!

This is a stupid issue to take a stand on, Korea isn't a problem.

[Romulox]

18. How do you guys rationalize away 30 years of declining wages

and how closely this declines corresponds with "free" trade policies? :shrug:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

23. Thats right, it was free trade with Canada, Australia and Singapore that fucked everyone over

Fucking Canadians who will work for maple syrup on stick took our jerbs.

[DainBramaged]

25. Global free trade apologists

thank God I have an extensive ignore list.

[pampango]

28. It's not so bad being on your ignore list either. We don't have to worry about

any of your potentially eloquent responses to our posts. ;)

Seriously, it must be nice to be a person who only speaks of deeply held (and undoubtedly correct) beliefs while you constantly have to deal with people (well, if they weren't on your ignore list, anyway) who have no deeply held beliefs which happen to differ from yours, but are just apologists, shills, and enablers (did I miss any of the labels) of and for the evil forces in the world.

[OhioChick]

29. I hear you, friend...

:hug:

[DainBramaged]

32. It's wonderful, I don't have to see the stoopid

but unfortunately everyone else does.... :hug: And they NEVER have ANY links or facts to back up their bullshit, ever. They can bleat like sheep about how cruel we are and how badly we treat foreign governments and workers, fuck 'em. Let them move there and find work if they love it so much.

And my NEW LOLcats for them

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

36. thousands are

There is a lot of opportunity in the world for western educated english speakers

[OhioChick]

37. I couldn't agree with you more....

I love the cat! :D

[Unvanguard]

34. Wow, that's a correlation/causation fallacy if I ever saw one

complicated even further by the fact that the correlation is hardly definitively established by the tiny data set you have just cited.

[Deja Q]

10. At what point does the globalizing finish and everyone can achieve and proper again?

Especially if these "free trade" deals have done more harm than good, economically, ecologically, and every other "ally" one can think of?

Illogical.

[The2ndWheel]

14. When energy is expensive

[DainBramaged]

15. Korea has 'freely' traded ONE WAY, EAST and doesn't deserve ANY agreement

They don't want to buy ANYTHING American, and have shoved their shitty apples down our throats for years, along with their TV's and cars. South Korea shipped about 700,000 cars to the US in2008 while importing 5,000 American cars. Some trade agreement.

Fuck 'em.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

24. One way? have you looked at the balance of trade? Korea returns 73%!

While by comparison France only returns about 60%

Believe it or not there is more to international trade than CARS.

How many airplanes has Korea sold the United States? Zero

Is that a cause for outrage in Korea, or does Korea just not build airplanes?

[Odin2005]

20. There is nothing wrong with free trade between two developed countries.

Its when one of the counties is still developing there is a problem.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[Unvanguard]

35. Good for him. Protectionism is bad for nearly everyone.

The way to protect working people is with strong unions, tough labor market regulations, and extensive social safety nets. Not by interfering with the trade of goods and services.