Sunday, October 16, 2011

New Trade Agreements - A Deal Or A Steal?

     With little fanfare, new trade agreements favored by the Obama administration were passed by both houses of Congress this week.  The agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama were dubbed by the media as "the most significant expansion of trade relations in nearly two decades" (The Washington Post, 10/13/11.)  These agreements, particularly the one with South Korea, have the potential to create 280,000 American jobs and boost U.S. exports by more than $12 billion.

     At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, or worse yet, a naysayer, the new trade agreements leave me feeling more skeptical than hopeful.  First of all, although the agreements had been stalled in Congress, both houses suddenly and quickly passed them.  Anything that's passed so easily by the present Congress, especially by the Republicans,  is, in my opinion, automatically suspect.  It usually means that the middle class is getting screwed, while the rich get richer. 
   
     Secondly, the stalled China trade aka "China currency" bill has not been passed, leaving me even more concerned.  This bill would significantly benefit  United States workers because it would levy a U.S. tariff on exported goods from China in order to stop China from manipulating its currency to gain a larger share of the export market.  In my opinion, this measure is long overdue, and would result in leveling the playing field for U.S. exports, thereby decreasing the U.S. trade deficit  with China and potentially creating more U.S. jobs.   

     To be sure, how the new trade agreements ultimately pan out will be decided by how well they are implemented, i.e., how well they are monitored and regulated.   According to the Obama administration, it has included "high standards for protecting labor rights and environmental concerns"  (The Washington Post, 10/13/11) in the agreements with Colombia and Panama.  But what of the agreement with South Korea, potentially the riskier of the agreements for workers in the U.S?  While exports are predicted to increase as a result of all of the new agreements , the amount of imports to the U.S., particularly from South Korea which has the 15th largest economy in the world, will likely increase, possibly cancelling out the positive benefits for American workers. 
      The track record for U.S. trade agreements has not been good news for American workers in recent years.  Take the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for example.  This agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico created the largest area of free trade in the world, and involves approximately 450 million workers, producing about $17 trillion in goods and services.  However, according to the most recent data (2009), NAFTA has resulted in a total of $397 billion in exports from the United States, while imports to the U.S. total $438 billion - a net trade deficit of $41 billion for the United States.  Former President Clinton, who signed NAFTA, appearing on David Letterman last week, said that the success of a trade agreement depends largely on how well the agreement is regulated, and implied that NAFTA has not been regulated as intended.  

      A significant part of the present Republican plan for creating jobs is to do away with regulation.  Presumably, this would include the regulation of trade agreements, making it even easier for U.S. corporations to outsource U.S. jobs, and import products from foreign countries.    Let's hope that  the Republican plan is not the plan that Congress or  we, the people, support, and that for our sake, all trade agreements are well--regulated.
************
We create and keep U.S. jobs when we demand, promote, and buy Made in USA
goods and products.


Keep warm in cooler weather with a good, hot, tasty cup or bowl of Made in USA soup.  The best soups, of course, are the ones homemade from scratch with locally-grown or grown-in- the-USA produce, raised-in-the-USA meat, poultry, or seafood, and other Made in USA ingredients. However, if you don't have the time to make your own, these ready-made soups, produced in the USA, are a good option.  If your favorite is not listed here, chances are it is made elsewhere (but being human, I could overlook something.)  Check labels before buying others, and feel free to post your own research to this blog.  Remember, "distributed by" or "manufactured by" does not mean it was made here, regardless of the company address!

This week's recommended products:

      ·         Nature's Promise "Naturals" soup - Product of USA by Foodhold USA, LLC,
            Landover, MD

·         Campbell's Chunky, Select Harvest, and Condensed soups (canned and microwaveable) - Cooked in USA by Campbell's Soup Co., Camden, NJ

·         Maruchan Ramen, Instant Lunch, and Yakisoba soups - Made in USA by Maruchan, Inc., Irvine, CA

·         Shore Lunch soup mix - Made in USA by Sportsman Recipes, Inc., Rome, GA

·         Kitchen Basics Vegetable, Chicken, Seafood, and Beef cooking stock - Product of USA by Kitchen Basics, Brecksville, OH

·         Streit's Matzo Ball and Soup mix, and Egg Drop soup mix - Product of USA by Aron Streit, Inc., New York, NY

·         Manischewitz Ball Soup, and Matzo Balls in Broth (canned in glass jars), and
      Matzo Ball and Soup mix - Product of USA by The Manischewitz Co., Secaucus, NJ

·         Annie Chun's soup bowls - Product of USA by Annie Chun, Inc., San Rafael, CA

·         Eating Right soup cups - Product of USA by Lucerne Foods, Inc., Pleasanton, CA

·         Dr. McDougall's soup cups - Product of USA by Dr. McDougall's Right Foods, San Francisco, CA

·         Safeway soup mix - Product of USA by Safeway, Inc., Pleasanton, CA

 Blog Sources:

"Congress approves 3 trade accords," Zachary Goldfarb & Lori Montgomery, The Washington Post, 10/13/11
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/28/1020990/-Reid-holding-vote-on-China-trade-bill-before-Obamas-jobs-plan

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swGkYPOJJrs&feature=related (link to Letterman interview of Clinton)

      


No comments:

Post a Comment