On Fair Trade, Governor Deal Appears to Agree with Donald Trump
In a major speech dealing with the economy on Tuesday, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pitched a protectionist message, vowing to opt out of trade agreements such as NAFTA or the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and pledging to impose tariffs on imported goods that in his opinion could be made in America.
A front page story in this morning’s Washington Post summarizes Trump’s positions, which appear to be out of step with traditional Republican policies:
Trump has long blamed broad trade agreements for harming U.S. workers. But this week has marked a rhetorical shift as he aggressively casts members of both parties who have supported trade deals as anti-American and in league with “special interests.” For many Republicans in particular, the rhetoric amounts to an assault on core ideological beliefs that have undergirded conservative economic policy for generations.
…
Trump has repeatedly blamed outsourcing and big trade agreements for domestic economic decline. He has vowed to renegotiate NAFTA as president and withdraw the United States from TPP — promises many experts in both parties call unrealistic and highly risky.
…
While Trump insists he is not trying to challenge free-trade principles, he has repeatedly argued that it is more important for the United States to have “fair trade” agreements. He has said that he would prefer to negotiate deals one-on-one with countries rather than enter into multi-national settlements.
At a press availability last week, Governor Deal was asked if he was concerned about Trump’s proposed trade policies, and whether they might hurt Georgia’s economy.
“I haven’t heard anything that would indicate that to me,” Deal said. “What I think [Trump] is really saying in the broader context of things is that we need fair trade. We need trade agreements that once they are signed and entered into are actually enforced.” The governor noted that the United States enters into broad trade agreements, yet no one appears to look at the terms and conditions of those agreements, and ensure their provisions are enforced.
“I think it is appropriate at the federal level that we have broad discussions about our trade policies in terms of opening up trade,” Deal said, noting that when he served in Congress, he voted in favor of free trade agreements. “We have a state interest in making sure our trade agreements work fairly.”
About Author
Jon Richards
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Deal says he is interested in “opening up trade,” but Trump’s position is clearly for restricting trade. It’s curious that Deal finds the need to translate for us what Trump is “really saying.” Trump is pretty clear on trade, and yesterday on the stump he predicted that prices would go up under his trade policies (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign.html?ref=politics).
Prices is just one data point. The real issue is the ratio of prices to wages. Obviously, spending power as a ratio is declining or we would not have a world wide demand problem.
IMF: The last generation of economic policies may have been a complete failure
http://www.businessinsider.com/imf-neoliberalism-warnings-2016-5
Interesting article. A couple quick points:
1) I’d be cautious about saying that there is any one “real issue” when it comes to trade.
2) The Business Insider piece seems to me to be largely an indictment of the idea that austerity and consolidation are the preferred approach to reducing extreme debt. We can create policies to replace that misguided idea without kicking free trade to the curb.
FROM IMF!
………However, there are aspects of the neoliberal agenda that have not delivered as expected. Our assessment of the agenda is confined to the effects of two policies: removing restrictions on the movement of capital across a country’s borders (so-called capital account liberalization); and fiscal consolidation, sometimes called “austerity,” which is shorthand for policies to reduce fiscal deficits and debt levels. An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches three disquieting conclusions:
•The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking at a broad group of countries.
•The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
•Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to pay attention to the distributional effects.…………..
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm
Keep in mind that Deal’s comments were made before Tuesday’s speech. At that speech, Trump clarified his position on free trade. So Deal’s remarks shouldn’t be looked at as a clarification of what Trump said Tuesday.
That being said, it’s difficult to tell exactly what Trump’s positions are. At one point, he says he wants to renegotiate trade agreements in order to produce better deals for the United States that what’s in place now. But then, he says he wants to bring jobs back to the United States, which would seem to be anti-trade.
You and Jon are fine with China stealing 300 billion a year in IP, using prison slave labor, manipulating and having tariffs all in violation of our trade agreement? If we dare enforce the agreement you claim it is being an isolationist. LOL…..
……..How China’s New Import Tariffs Violate World Trade Organization Rules………..
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2027081-how-chinas-new-import-tariffs-violate-world-trade-organization-rules/
Please save us Obi wan Kenobi!
Keep putting your head in the sand. You can click your heals three times and hope it will solve itself.
Keep throwing straw men into the wind. Of course everyone that dares point something out and disagrees with the all knowing Wizard of Konop will be called a fool or obviously supports China’s IP theft.
You are a great people person John.
I wish I had a virtual taser.
“Gentlemen, if you please. This is a private fight.
The Marquis of Queensbury rules will be observed on all occasions…
Non-belligerents will kindly remain neutral.”
Where did you get the impression that I’m in favor of all that stuff, John? I’d just as soon you not put words in my mouth.
I was just asking? What is your opinion?
As someone from the Libertarian CATO Institute wrote recently, the trade issue is often a source of demagoguery in an election year—from both the Left (like Bernie Sanders) and the Right (Donald Trump). The port of Savannah has about an equal ratio of exports and imports, and Brunswick is one of the top car import ports in the United States. The problem free traders have is that the benefits of trade are dispersed (such as lower prices for items) while the costs are concentrated (workers losing their jobs). But a lot job loss is due to automation—our freight railroads for instance employ far fewer than they did a generation or two ago yet still move vast quantities of good. Banks don’t employ as many tellers because of ATMS and direct deposit. With tractors, farmers don’t need as many laborers to plant and harvest crops. Southern states have secured a lot of auto plants since the 1970s—maybe someone should ask Trump if unreasonable unions, high taxes and regulations are also impediments to job growth in the North, in addition to the trade issue?
Should we just let trade partners violate agreements?
So I ask this with zero snark. I promise. What do we do? Do we go back to the trade policies of the 1950s? I don’t believe that’s the answer or even possible.
Your solution is do a business deal, and let the other party rip you off, and hope it works out. LOL….
Where have I ever said what my solution is John? I asked a simple question. Not to you by the way. I would like to have a discussion about this, but not with you. You are incapable of having a discussion about anything.
The only thing you are capable of are straw men arguments. Putting words into other people’s mouths and acting like a jerk………………………………………………………………………
Sun is out so I’m heading to the river. I’m not here to entertain your sad soul.
What you do is called projection! I ask a direct question, all you do is go straw-man. LOL…It does not matter the issue…..
……… Projection is a form of defense in which unwanted feelings are displaced onto another person, where they then appear as a threat from the external world. A common form of projection occurs when an individual, threatened by his own angry feelings, accuses another of harbouring hostile thoughts. personality: Freud….
Andrew,
LOL….You as my lawyer would advise the price of doing business is let them violate an agreement you put together? WOW!
You claim prison labor camps in places like China have nothing to do with stolen jobs? You sound like the slave owners who claimed the same thing pre our own civil war.
John:
Your comments here recently have done more to shut down conversation about issues instead of fostering discussion with the commenters, and this post is a classic example of the problem. Rather than explaining your position on a given issue, you post a somewhat related link with a brief quote, and then ask the post author or other commenters to defend or oppose the link. If they don’t respond the way you want them to, you insult them.
This isn’t the only time you have done this. You’ve ground the Chinese IP theft and slave labor argument into the ground, both here, in other posts, and in the morning reads. When the legislature was in session, it seemed like every comment thread dealing with the religious liberty issue turned into a denunciation of Josh McKoon and the people he allegedly was affiliated with. I could go on with other topics.
Again, the goal here is to foster reasonable discussion on politics-related topics, but you are driving people like Andrew, The Eiger, and others away. I’ve warned you about this before, yet somehow the lesson never seems to stick. Consider this your last warning. The next step will be something similar to what happened to The Last Democrat in Georgia back at the old place.
Jon,
Do whatever you want! I asked you a direct question, and your response speaks more, than a real response to my question.
John, that was the wrong answer, and shows you don’t understand why I am calling attention to this.
So, until you are told differently, these are your ground rules:
Any comment you make that contains a link will be deleted without notice. That includes YouTube or other videos.
Any comment you make that is derogatory towards another commenter will be deleted. Examples of such comments are on this thread in your responses to Andrew, TheEiger, and me.
The goal here is that I want you to be able to express your own opinion on the topic of a post, but it needs to be in your own words, and can’t be a putdown of other commenters. It also can’t be a threadjack.
I don’t know how long these rules will be in effect. Consider yourself on probation for an indefinite period of time.
Jon,
Just ban me, speaks more about you than me. Facts do matter, and the reason I use links is to point out facts.
I don’t want to ban you. What I want is or you to advocate for your beliefs by expressing your own opinion, not just linking to some other source and saying, “See! here’s what they say.”
Jon,
Just like The Eiger and Andrew did? LOL…..Do what ever you want! The truth is the truth!
………..The Eiger (aka the NEOCON Hack) July 1, 2016 at 12:51 pm Reply
Keep throwing straw men into the wind. Of course everyone that dares point something out and disagrees with the all knowing Wizard of Konop will be called a fool or obviously supports China’s IP theft.
You are a great people person John…………….
Really?
This is what warrants moderation on this website? Not insulting attacks, or trollish behavior? I can’t recall John engaging in either.
Jon, with respect, Konop is one of the sharpest posters here, on many, many different subjects. He’s passionate in his opinions, as are most of us. I don’t see being a bad, insulting guy. I’d really hate to see him banished! Keep John here!
So funny that we would agree…your the person I was describing. Why your still allowed to post is beyond me.
I respect both of you guys….as you guys know I am very independent with my views. I think open debate with facts helps all of us.
Ummm, I think you mean “You’re ” LOL!
“The governor noted that the United States enters into broad trade agreements, yet no one appears to look at the terms and conditions of those agreements, and ensure their provisions are enforced.”
Not so different from Georgia’s handling of tax exemptions and credits. Take beneficiaries words at face value in their establishment, and do little monitoring to confirm the results sustain proponent’s claims.
If Trumpet’s trade policies could hurt Georgia, what about Hilly’s trade policies? She also opposes TPP, would renegotiate NAFTA and she complains about currency manipulation and China “dumping” products on this country.
The specifics of their pronouncements are indeed like two peas in a pod.
The recruitment of foreign investment to Georgia has been a bipartisan exercise the last 40 or so years—as examples Democrat George Busbee (who served 1975-1983) and Sonny Perdue (2003-2011), who lured the Korean KIA plant to West Point in his second term. When Barnes was governor, he tried to lure Daimler-Chrysler to Savannah (but failed). I thought Jim Galloway of the AJC had a good article over the weekend about how the South, when the textile industry started to wane in the 970s, instead looked to foreign investment, while many Northern states tried to do the equivalent of “saving snowballs in July” when it came to the steel industry. One might also argue that the economic winds of the last 40 or so years point to the need, like in one’s portfolio, for diversification, not relying on one sector or industry to power your local economy.
What made the south more versitile in it’s ability to shift from one industry to another while the north saved snowballs in July? There are a lot of reasons, but I would say the cost of living and not having unions with a straglehold on indusrties are two leading factors.