NAFTA

[nightswatch]

So apparently Hillary and Obama are going at each other over NAFTA. Talk to me about this. While I recognize the ills of globalization and have spent time talking about them, I've gotta confess most of my economic knowledge comes from AP Macro, where I guess I got a pretty convincing case for the orthodoxy of free trade. Am I right to be ashamed

Comments

[userj]

Heh. I dunno if you heard marketplace last night. It was interesting because they basically came down as saying that NAFTA doesn't really do anything of substance one way or another when it comes to blue collar worker's jobs, at least compared to trade with Asia - but it was one issue unions really shoved down the throats of their members 12 years ago. It's 100% pandering, so feel free to be ashamed...

What's interesting is that I think the "reforms" both candidates would probably do to NAFTA would be more likely to be "fair trade" reforms - which is something I think is good (ie, environmental/worker safety oversight of international corporations)... but is really unrelated to the car-worker vote.

[aofclarein]

there is.... another.... Obama.

[luke123]

He was SUPPOSED to be the chosen one.

[salieri]

I've heard basically what Josie heard on the efficacy of NAFTA. On a broader note, I'd say that the democrats approach free trade the wrong way. It really can hurt blue collar workers. You can restrict trade and protect them, but then you can't buy awesome phones from Korea. You can have free trade and tell blue collar workers to suck it up. Or you can have trade and use the money you get to create a social safety net and invest in education and job training so people can deal with losing their jobs. Of course, that's class warfare.

On money, better that Obama brake his poorly thought out pledge than that he lose an election. I don't think there's a very good moral case to be made for accepting public financing. Particularly when your opponent's supporters have the money and resources to take out issue ads on things they care about and your supporters don't have that kind of organizational infrastructure.

On another note, does Tim Russert suck or what?

campaign finiance

[userj]

I think that it's incorrect to say that Democrats don't have enough "soft money" to compete with McCain. Maybe right now Obama's camp doesn't have as much as other candidates, but once he is The Candidate, he will have access to more issue ad money than McCain if anything.

Of course the whole point is to decrease the amount of money spent on campaigns. With good faith from both candidates, this CAN be done, and I think there would have been a CHANCE for this given these particular candidates.

I strongly disagree with "better that Obama brake his ... pledge than that he lose an election." I would be extremely upset if Obama wins having broken his pledge but McCain did not (there's a possibility McCain may be stuck to the public finance "cap" because of certain loaning issues).

Re: campaign finiance

[salieri]

I wasn't talking about soft money, though. Dollar for dollar McCain and Obama will be even with public financing, and that's fine. The problem is McCain has substantial corporate interests backing him. Industries that can take out issue ads which don't fall under any restriction in McCain-Feingold. Obama's interest groups are at a huge disadvantage here. Obama's supporters can donate in small amounts to his campaign, which does a lot to level the playing field. That's where he gets his money. McCain has the support of organizations that already have extremely well funded 527s to make their cases for them. McCain can take public money because his backers will campaign for him. It would be a shame if Obama's supporters weren't able to make themselves felt as a powerful interest because of the arbitrary restrictions that come with public financing

Re: campaign finiance

[userj]

I guess from my understanding what you described is soft money: groups outside of the campaign run ads for issues in support of a position/attacking rivals positions - just want to verify that's what we're talking about