Trade deals

Paul Krugman:

The most a progressive can responsibly call for, I’d argue, is a standstill on further deals, or at least a presumption that proposed deals are guilty unless proved innocent.

The hard question to deal with here is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which the Obama administration has negotiated but Congress hasn’t yet approved. (I consider myself a soft opponent: It’s not the devil’s work, but I really wish President Obama hadn’t gone there.) People I respect in the administration say that it should be considered an existing deal that should stand; I’d argue that there’s a lot less U.S. credibility at stake than they claim.

The larger point in this election season is, however, that politicians should be honest and realistic about trade, rather than taking cheap shots. Striking poses is easy; figuring out what we can and should do is a lot harder. But you know, that’s a would-be president’s job.

3 thoughts on “Trade deals

  1. How hard is it to just say, no we are done with this nonsense. This is insane that the us credibility is somehow on the line if TPP is not passed. Apparently credibility is defined as the willingness and ability to subvert sovereignty and democracy to international corporate fascism. In which case I say fuck yer credibility Obama, and fuck yer payout from Carlisle group or whoever has sponsored your suspicious cake walk rise to the senate and whitehouse.

  2. I am not clear why you are running without comment this latest incomprehensible screed from nincompoop Krugman. Everything and anything he writes is utter hogwash. Do yourself a favor. Spend a couple of hours reading Yves’ Naked Capitalism blog.

  3. Krugman is not a nincompoop in his specialty, just when he generalizes from this area to general political economy. And when he strays into politics itself, he’s a pure shill for Hill, and damn the economic and academic stupidities. Which explains why Susie runs (some) of his stuff. After all, he’s paul f’ing krugman.

Comments are closed.