Monday, April 20, 2015

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 4/17/2015

"Shields and Brooks on Pacific trade deal politics, Clinton and Rubio on the trail" PBS NewsHour 4/17/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss this week’s news, including the potential domestic and global effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, defining the role of Congress in the Iran nuclear deal, Hillary Clinton’s campaign rollout and Sen. Marco Rubio’s potential in the Republican party.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  So, Mark, let’s talk about something not very exciting, but it’s really important.  It’s that Trans-Pacific Partnership that now we know the White House, the administration, a few Democrats, a lot of Republicans, have come together around, apparently.

Is this a good deal, based on what we know about it?

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  Well, supporters of trade agreements, including the President, would argue, with logic, that elevated — these trade agreements have raised the standard of living across the globe.  They have lifted people out of poverty and led to greater economic activity.

They have been a disaster for American workers, a total disaster, beginning with NAFTA.  They have put all the power in the hands of the employer.  The employer threatens, if you don’t go along, if you don’t surrender your bargaining rights, if you don’t surrender your health and pension benefits, if you don’t surrender collective union membership, we will move your job overseas.

And as consequence of NAFTA some 22 years ago, documented by our own government, 755,000 jobs lost immediately…

JUDY WOODRUFF:  North American Trade Agreement.

MARK SHIELDS:  … five million fewer American — five million fewer American manufacturing jobs than there were.

And I just think the pattern, Judy, has been established in our society.  We see it where all — the trade agreements, the investor class capital is protected, whether it’s copyrights or whatever, intellectual property, their investments.  And they just pay lip service to workers’ rights.  And I just — I think it’s one more example.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And the President defended it again today, David, so that means he is siding the investor class?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Yes, I don’t think so.

I agree with Mark’s first point.  The greatest reduction in human poverty — in human history of poverty has taken place because of this era of free trade.  And it’s been around the globe.  As for the domestic workers, it’s complicated.  It has hurt some people in some of the unions.  There’s no question about it.

The unions were dominant in the 1950s, when Europe was collapsed, when we had basically global dominance, 50 percent productivity gains.  And as the world has globalized, the unions have weakened.  And there have been some worker rights that have been sacrificed.  There’s no question about that.

It’s hurt people with fungible skills that can be replicated by those in China and India and elsewhere.  On the other hand, it has created many new jobs.  The vast field of research on this, on trade research, there are economists who are skeptics, who cite some of Mark’s numbers.

There are some, and I would say the majority are slightly pro-trade, are more pro-trade and think that, net-net, we have had a growth in jobs and there are certain industries devastated, but other industries created.

Finally, costs.  All of us rely and buy goods that come from Asia, from Africa, from Europe.  And those goods are much, much cheaper and our standard of living is much, much better because of these cheap goods that we benefit from and that people with lower incomes benefit from.

So, are there losers?  We are more acutely aware of the losers than we were.  And there are more losers than there were.  But are there winners?  There are a ton of winners.

MARK SHIELDS:  Median household income in the United States was lower in 2012 than it was in 1989.  I’m not saying solely because of this, but largely because of this.

Judy, if you want to see the dominance of capital that I think these trade agreements exemplify and embody, all you have to see is the 2008 crisis, economic crisis in this country.  Millions of ordinary Americans saw their futures, their savings, their homes wiped out.  And they got nothing in the way of relief.

Those who had caused it, who had brought the country to its knees, the big banks and the investment houses of Wall Street, were bailed out by people.  They were made whole.  So, you had a choice.  Who are you going to help and who you going to leave to make out for their own?

We have capitalism for the rich and we have free enterprise, high risk for workers.  And I just think this is what it exemplifies.  That’s what the resistance is about.  Will they defeat the President?  Probably not, because I think Republicans will be with him.  And I think the opposition has been weakened ever since NAFTA, over 22 years.

American workers have lost their clout politically.

DAVID BROOKS:  Global finance — the 2008 crash wasn’t a matter of trade.

MARK SHIELDS:  No.

DAVID BROOKS:  It was mostly a matter of the interlocking financial network, and which wasn’t about trading goods and services, sort of thing that’s involved in this.

And so I just — I don’t think that’s why the wages have been flat.  Secondly, on why the wages have been flat has not to do with trade.  It has to do with technology.  Trade is a small, small piece of this.  If we were closed in, and you were in a steel factory in Pittsburgh, and they invented all this new technology to forge steel with a fraction of the workers, it wouldn’t matter if we had global trade or not.  The technology was there and the technology was a lot cheaper.  So, technological advance is the lion’s share of why these wages have been flat.

MARK SHIELDS:  I’m not saying that 2008 was caused by trade.  I’m saying the template of the trade agreement of 1993, of — where capital was emphasized and deferred to, and workers were really basically left at the back of the bus, became the dominant model for our economy.

And it is to this day.  It is our politics.  And it was in 2008 on the bailouts.

No comments: