Trade deals are not all good or bad

A good piece that, in critiquing simplistic takes on trade policy and trade agreements, offers a primer on their basic workings. As I tweeted and Facebooked  the other day, trade deals are neither good or bad in theory, but specific deals can be.

You have to look at the details, as Dean Baker says. Who wins and who loses? Who is at the table? How will disputes be addressed? Every one of those questions requires a value judgment — which is why all trade deals are as much about protectionism as they are about opening markets.

Consider Baker’s explanation:

The United States pursues a variety of agendas in its trade negotiations. Naturally it does not get everything it wants, it prioritizes some items over others. In some areas it clearly has been very “tough” as measured by outcomes. For example, Pfizer and Microsoft and other drug, software, and entertainment companies are collecting tens of billions of dollars a year from foreign countries because U.S. trade negotiators have been very tough in demanding that these countries adopt U.S.-type rules on patents and copyrights.

The United States has also demanded that other countries allow U.S. corporations to take their complaints to special tribunals outside of their domestic legal system. This is a central feature of the newly negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership. Undoubtedly our negotiators had to be very tough to get these countries to surrender this aspect of their national sovereignty. (We even had to make a reciprocal sacrifice of sovereignty, allowing foreign investors a route around the U.S. legal system.)

Negotiators have not been tough in pressing demands on currency values, which would have meant a lower U.S. trade deficit with countries like China. While the trade deficit matters hugely to workers, some of whom directly lose jobs to imports and others who suffer indirectly from a weak labor market (in the era of secular stagnation we have no mechanism for making up the demand lost due to a trade deficit), it actually benefits many major corporations.

Companies like GE benefit from being able to produce at low cost in countries like China. Retailers like Walmart also benefit from having low-cost supply chains in the developing world. And highly-paid professionals like doctors, who are largely protected by regulations from foreign competition, benefit from a weak labor market by being able to hire cheap help.

U.S. negotiators, as he says, are picking winners and losers. That’s totally appropriate. The issues we need to be discussing, however, are whether the winners and losers they have chosen match the priorities of Americans and workers around the world.

Send me an e-mail.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

A matter of principle, or so they say

A Facebook friend offers this argument in favor of his decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton:

It is an interesting argument, one I made as recently as 2000 or so, but one that fails a basic test. Voting is not an act of principle, but a pragmatic act that is part of a larger array of strategic actions we should be taking to push our agenda.

I understand the urge to toss Hillary Clinton under the bus. I am no fan — she has been too close to corporate interests and is far too hawkish on foreign policy. But it is dangerous to assume that tossing her under the electoral bus will not have consequences. Clinton and Donald Trump are not the same. On several key issues — the court, immigration, health care — a Trump presidency would be a disaster. Trump’s rhetoric has been racist, misogynist and protofascist, and his electoral success in the primaries has given an imprimatur to the racists and misogynists out there. I could go on.

So, how does the notion of “principles” factor in? I could argue that my principles demand that I vote for Clinton as the only person who reasonably can be expected to beat Trump and keep him away from the nuclear codes and the bully pulpit of the presidency. Or I could argue that Clinton’s long-standing pro-corporate biases disqualify her from receiving my vote, and that I had no principled choice but to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party. In this case, the argument is that we must use our ballot to send a signal to whoever it is that wins the White House that we on the left can not be taken lightly.

Both are legitimate and principled arguments that are consistent with the beliefs of lefties like me. But they are in conflict with each other and, in the end, we have to reconcile the conflict. The reality is that Stein is not going to win the presidency. A protest vote may send a message, but it also deprives the more liberal candidate of a liberal/lefty vote. It is not a vote for Trump, but it ultimately enhances the value of the individual Trump vote by removing a counterweight to that vote. If enough liberals and lefties vote for Stein, Trump could win. (The same is true in the other direction; if enough conservative voters move to Gary Johnson, for instance, it would doom Trump.)

It is a question of strategy, then, and not one of principle. Those of us suspicious of Clinton have to ask ourselves which principle will serve us best long-term — one in which we send a message but potentially give the White House to a narcissistic opportunist with proto-fascist tendencies, or one in which we bite our lip and back a badly flawed candidate understanding that we are best served by having a Democrat choose the next few Supreme Court candidates and prevent the rollback of the gains made over the last eight years.

Voting is a strategic act, as I said, and it has to be part of a broader political strategy. In my case,  I’m voting for Clinton in November, not so much as a lesser of two evils, but as a way of making the best of a bad situation. And after she is elected, I plan to be one of her biggest critics, doing what I can to continue pushing her to the left.

Send me an e-mail.

Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.

Jose, Jose, Jose

Jose Reyes is back with the Mets — or back with the Mets organization. He signed a minor league contract over the weekend and is expected to spent a week or two getting in baseball shape and learning some new positions, so he can return to Queens as a super utility player.
It’s unclear whether this will help the Mets — his skills have been in decline for the last three years — but my Mets heart is happy to see one of my favorite players from a decade ago back with the team.
The Reyes signing, though, raises some questions beyond what he can still do on the field, questions pointed to by the response I received to a tweet I sent out Saturday:  
I can understand Babe Ruth’s anger. Reyes was accused of assault and domestic violence in Hawaii during the offseason, though he was never charged because his wife Katherine Ramirez — the victim — refused to cooperate with the investigation. He wasn’t cleared, though police couldn’t find enough evidence to proceed, and Major League Baseball acted. Reyes was suspended for 52 games to start this season in accordance with league policy. (Was 52 games enough of a suspension? Should it have been longer? Would a lifetime ban have been appropriate?)
The suspension ended and the Rockies essentially cut him from the team (the MLB process is a bit involved but not really necessary to explain here). They ate the bulk of his massive contract and the Mets decided to take a flier on one of their old heroes.
As a baseball move, it makes sense — a low-risk gamble. Is it an ethical or morall? How do we deal with the domestic violence? Is he just a creep, as  the Twitter response says, irredeemable and unforgivable?
“It’s outrageous how little women’s lives seem to matter when someone can throw a baseball really hard, wins Super Bowl’s, or has a good jump shot,” Mark-Viverito said in a statement.
“Domestic violence kills thousands of women every year and it’s time professional sports actually takes it seriously. The Mets should be ashamed. We need to be better.”
We do need to do better, and we should ask whether Reyes is being given his second chance because of his — diminishing — talents or his history with the team.
I honestly can’t answer that, though I suspect it is a factor — the way it is for so many in powerful positions. As a general rule, I believe in forgiveness, but I think that forgiveness is earned. I also think there is a difference between someone who is a serial abuser and one who gives in to his worst impulses once. The act is still a crime, a sin, and cannot be explained away. As Barretta said, you do the crime you should do the time.
Some domestic violence advocates, at least, are prepared to give Reyes a chance.
“Domestic violence is a choice,” said Cindy Southworth, the executive vice president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence. “Because it’s behavior that can be chosen, it’s also behavior that cannot be chosen. People can come back from that and have a more respectful relationship. It’s hard work and needs a trained therapist, but I do think it’s possible.”
Southworth emphasized a point that she said could seem counterintuitive: Reyes being allowed to continue his career could benefit his wife and others who find themselves in abusive relationships with athletes.
“What we don’t want is for someone, the moment the police are called, is for an athlete to lose his entire career,” she said. “It would create huge, unfathomable pressure not to call 911 if they knew their loved one’s career would be in jeopardy.”
What happens after the abuse or when the abuser is caught also has to be factored in. Ray Rice, for instance, initially faced an unexplainably short punishment that was lengthened to something more appropriate. He showed remorse — I think — and probably deserves another shot on the field. Reyes faced a stiff penalty in baseball terms and is at least saying the right things. The question is what that might be worth. Has he earned his second chance?
I can’t answer that, either. I can say that we have, for too long, treated domestic violence as a private matter, failing the victims. Reyes’ wife refused to cooperate, but that is part of the tragedy in these cases — women are afraid or refuse to come forward. It has made prosecuting cases of domestic abuse very difficult. 
As you can see, I’m ambivalent. Reyes was my favorite Met until he left, and my baseball heart is glad to see him return. My baseball head sees it as a good baseball move, as well. But my ethical and moral compasses are sending different, and mixed signals.
Email me at grassroots at comcast dot net.