Forums

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, I still don't see it. So he's economically knowledgable? Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama are both smart people, and I'm sure they both understand economic fundamentals pretty well. Doesn't mean they'll implement them.

As I think about it (and I suspect Spanky has long been there), free trade (which is described as NAFTA) may be the same sort of signaling issue as abortion. It's not just the issue itself, but that it signals a broader perspective. With abortion it's fundamental liberties. With free trade it's fundamental economics. The justifications for free trade are to me so basic (and the costs of stifling trade so significant) that opposing it calls into question a candidate's entire economic platform.

Seems to me that one could be pro-free trade generally, and opposed to parts of NAFTA at the same time.

Again, from the speech I saw:

We're here because there are workers in Youngstown, Ohio, who've watched job after job after job disappear because of bad trade deals like NAFTA, who've worked in factories -- who've worked in factories for 20 years, and then one day they come in and literally see the equipment unbolted from the floor and sent to China.

They need us to end those tax breaks that go to companies that ship jobs overseas...

Followed by,

We want to promote trade and we embrace globalization, but we also want our trade deals to have labor standards and environmental standards and safety standards so our workers aren't undermined and our children aren't playing with toys based in lead paint. That's the change we want.