With the primaries of Texas and Ohio looming ever closer, trade is actually becoming a big issue in the presidential contest! But, unfortunately, not in a good way. Both Dems are choosing to demogague the issue to get votes. Obama has flip flopped from his previously sound position stating that he would at least attempt to change the longstanding, failed U.S. "policy" (and I use the word policy lightly) on Cuba. He is also saying he will ban all toy imports from China. What is he? The Burger Meister Meister Burger?
Hillary, on the other hand, is vowing to take a "break" on free trade, and to "renegotiate" NAFTA.
I think it is safe to say that both candidates are simply trying to win votes, and neither will stick to any of their trade positions once in office, because of course those positions make no sense, and even clash with the more sound policies they have posted on their websites. Plus, candidates have a long history of changing positions on trade once in office. Remember Bill Clinton? He was going to ban all trade with China, in response to the "Butchers of Beijing." Turns out he was the most free-trade oriented president we have seen in a long time.
President Bush campaigned on free trade. But his first major trade initiative was to impose a section 201 action on steel imports for purely political reasons. Not free trade at all. So you can't always judge a candidate's trade position from what is being said on the campaign trail.
The NYT has a great article today on presidential politics and trade: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/business/27leonhardt.html?ref=politics
And since we are discussing intellectual property rights tonight in class, you may enjoy reading about our own problems in the US on this issue at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/nyregion/27chinatown.html?ref=nyregion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment