Crosstalk: Do trade agreements benefit the US?

The arguments for free trade agreements are that they “level the playing field” between nations, allowing U.S. producers to market their products overseas without restrictions, and vice versa.

Free trade is free market on a world-wide scale.

Those who argue against free trade point out the loss of American manufacturing jobs to other countries, where wages are at rock bottom and the working conditions would be unacceptable in the U.S. They also point out that a lack of environmental regulations in other countries threatens the global environment, and again, make it hard for American manufacturers to compete.

In short, free trade is good for corporate profits but bad for American workers and the global environment.

Oregon Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, who has voted both for and against the trade agreements entered into by the United States to date, is a major supporter of the current attempt to enter into a major trade agreement with the Pacific Rim nations.

He argues that the current proposal, as described to date, addresses the issue of rock bottom wages and poor working conditions, as well as environmental damage, by requiring participating nations to set minimum wages, as well as regulate working conditions and environmental damage.

On the face of it, this makes sense. The question, in my mind, is enforcement.

The ability of any sovereign nation to enforce even a legally binding agreement with another nation is problematic. On the home front, we certainly don’t want foreign nations telling us what we can or cannot do in the realm of, for example, farm policy.

Trade agreements can do that, by limiting “government subsidies” that impact the ability of other member nations to compete in the production of food and meat.

Offshore, the ability of the U.S. to enforce wage equity on other countries is also questionable. The “rule of law” requires a robust system of law enforcement, both on the ground in the form of inspections and in the international courts. The entire system must be built from the ground up.

Yes, requiring our trading partners to do business in a humane and safe manner sounds great. Wyden has a good argument, and it sounds like this could be a better trade agreement than some of the fiascos signed in the past.

On the other hand, we could require U.S. corporations, which have benefited mightily from the abuse of the offshore worker and the global environment, to simply cease and desist. Just because they can doesn’t mean they should.

For my part, I have no interest in purchasing expensive shoes made by what in my mind looks more like slave labor then “free trade,” trade agreement or not.

By RaeLynn Ricarte

I have conflicting feelings about trade agreements because I do believe they are partly responsible for lost American manufacturing jobs, but only partly — there are a couple of other factors at play here:

• Labor unions have to take some of the blame for driving jobs out of thecountry because their demands sometimes exceed what the market can bear.

A prime example is the longshoreman’s dispute earlier this year over unfair labor practices and other issues that shut down work at the Port of Portland.

The long-running dispute led to the departure of Hanjin Shipping, which was responsible for the majority of freight coming and going at the port.

During those types of standoffs, companies have to bear the additional costs of attorney’s fees, arbitrations and handling of grievances in addition to lost productivity, planning for strikes and maintaining security.

• The U.S. is held to production and environmental standards that are not required for many developing nations.

As an example, the FDA only inspects 1 to 2 percent of food that comes from China and, even when it is inspected, it is rarely tested for heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs or other toxic contaminants. The same is true for imports from South America. Our farmers must comply with labor and food safety rules that increase operational costs that make it more difficult for them to compete with foreign imports.

At the the heart of my discomfort with trade agreements is the fact that Americans are my fellow countrymen and my first loyalty is to them.

And trade agreements open the door for companies to exit the U.S., for whatever reason.

I also join Mark in the belief that exploiting workers in Third-World countries isn’t worth the bargain that consumers get at a store.

However, I don’t believe it is possible in the 21st Century for the U.S. to close off its free trade opportunities without also damaging the economy.

Many domestic companies gain big from the reduction in tariffs brought by the agreements and ability to anchor relations with other nations.

According to a position paper written by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz and U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan, one in five American jobs depends on trade, and that share is only going to grow.

American wealth for many companies will be lost if they can no longer sell the goods and services they produce to other countries.

Ninety-six percent of the world’s customers are reportedly outside the U.S.

But trade agreements are about more than just economics.

In the case of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we have to decide, as Cruz so succinctly put it, “Who is going to write the rules for the global economy, the U.S. or China?”

If we don’t sign the agreement with Pacific Rim nations, they will undoubtedly gravitate to China, which advocates for a global economy that benefits government-owned firms more than private enterprise.

Free trade also encourages innovation, which leads to the creation of new technologies and products. However, if we are truly going to level the playing field with other nations, their farmers and ranchers should be held to the same production standards as food producers in the U.S.