Bernie Sanders on Trade, the real populist candidate

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
1
Q: What do you think about the new TPP trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

SANDERS: I voted against NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China. I think they have been a disaster for the American worker. A lot of corporations that shut down here move abroad. Working people understand that after NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. Since 2001, 60,000 factories in America have been shut down. We're in a race to the bottom, where our wages are going down. Is all of that attributable to trade? No. Is a lot of it? Yes. TPP was written by corporate America and the pharmaceutical industry and Wall Street. That's what this trade agreement is about. I do not want American workers to competing against people in Vietnam who make 56 cents an hour for a minimum wage.

Q: So basically, there's never been a single trade agreement this country's negotiated that you've been comfortable with?

SANDERS: That's correct.

Q: What does Bernie's track record look like with regard to Chinese trade policy?

A: Time and time again, Bernie has voted against free trade deals with China. In 1999, Bernie voted in the House against granting China "Most Favored Nation" status. In 2000, Bernie voted against Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China which aimed to create jobs, but instead lead to the loss of more than 3 million jobs for Americans.

Q: Maybe these trade agreements aren't all great for Americans, but don't they provide millions of jobs for Chinese workers?

A: Bernie firmly rejects the idea that America's standard of living must drop in order to see a raise in the standard of living in China.

Q: So what does Bernie propose we do?

A: Instead of passing such trade deals again and again, Bernie argues we must "develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad."

End disastrous NAFTA, CAFTA, and PNTR with China

Since 2001 we have lost more than 60,000 factories in this country, and more than 4.9 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs. We must end our disastrous trade policies (NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, etc.) which enable corporate America to shut down plants in this country and move to China and other low-wage
countries. We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad.

Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. Approves the Agreement entered into with the government of Peru. Provides for the Agreement's entry into force upon certain conditions being met on or after January 1, 2008. Prescribes requirements for:
  • enforcement of textile and apparel rules of origin;
  • certain textile and apparel safeguard measures; and
  • enforcement of export laws governing trade of timber products from Peru.

Impose tariffs against countries which manipulate currency.
Sanders signed Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act
  • Amends the Tariff Act of 1930 to include as a "countervailable subsidy" requiring action under a countervailing duty or antidumping duty proceeding the benefit conferred on merchandise imported into the US from foreign countries with fundamentally undervalued currency.
  • Defines "benefit conferred" as the difference between:
    1. the amount of currency provided by a foreign country in which the subject merchandise is produced; and
    2. the amount of currency such country would have provided if the real effective exchange rate of its currency were not fundamentally undervalued.
  • Determines that the currency of a foreign country is fundamentally undervalued if for an 18-month period:
    1. the government of the country engages in protracted, large-scale intervention in one or more foreign exchange markets
    2. the country's real effective exchange rate is undervalued by at least 5%
    3. the country has experienced significant and persistent global current account surpluses; and
    4. the country's government has foreign asset reserves exceeding the amount necessary to repay all its debt obligations.
[Explanatory note from Wikipedia.com "Exchange Rate"]:
Between 1994 and 2005, the Chinese yuan renminbi was pegged to the US dollar at RMB 8.28 to $1. Countries may gain an advantage in international trade if they manipulate the value of their currency by artificially keeping its value low. It is argued that China has succeeded in doing this over a long period of time. However, a 2005 appreciation of the Yuan by 22% was followed by a 39% increase in Chinese imports to the US. In 2010, other nations, including Japan & Brazil, attempted to devalue their currency in the hopes of subsidizing cheap exports and bolstering their ailing economies. A low exchange rate lowers the price of a country's goods for consumers in other countries but raises the price of imported goods for consumers in the manipulating country. Source: HR.639&S.328 11-S0328 on Feb 14, 2011


http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm
 
Last edited:
Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy.
Sanders co-sponsored extending trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy
A joint resolution approving the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003. The original act sanctioned the ruling military junta, and recognized the National League of Democracy as the legitimate representative of the Burmese people.
Legislative Outcome: Related bills: H.J.RES.44, H.J.RES.93, S.J.RES.41; became Public Law 110-52. Source: S.J.RES.16 07-SJR16 on Jun 14, 2007
09-HR3012 on Jun 24, 2009


Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. Vote to establish negotiating objectives for trade agreements between the United States and foreign countries and renew 'fast track' authority for the President. Reference: Bill introduced by Archer, R-TX.; Bill HR 2621 ; vote number 1998-466 on Sep 25, 1998

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. Vote on withdrawing Congressional approval from the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization [WTO]. Reference: Resolution sponsored by Paul, R-TX; Bill H J Res 90 ; vote number 2000-310 on Jun 21, 2000

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. Vote to pass a bill that would put into effect a trade agreement between the United States and Singapore. The trade agreement would reduce tariffs and trade barriers between the United States and Singapore. The agreement would remove tariffs on goods and duties on textiles, and open markets for services The agreement would also establish intellectual property, environmental and labor standards. Reference: US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement; Bill HR 2739 ; vote number 2003-432 on Jul 24, 2003

HR 2738 ; vote number 2003-436 on Jul 24, 2003

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. To implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement. A vote of YES would:
  • Progressively eliminate customs duties on all originating goods traded among the participating nations
  • Preserve U.S. duties on imports of sugar goods over a certain quota
  • Remove duties on textile and apparel goods traded among participating nations
  • Prohibit export subsidies for agricultural goods traded among participating nations
  • Provide for cooperation among participating nations on customs laws and import licensing procedures
  • Encourage each participating nation to adopt and enforce laws ensuring high levels of sanitation and environmental protection
  • Recommend that each participating nation uphold the International Labor Organization Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
  • Urge each participating nation to obey various international agreements regarding intellectual property rights
Reference: CAFTA Implementation Bill; Bill HR 3045 ; vote number 2005-443 on Jul 28, 2005
 
Bernie is the truth on trade. I applaud Trump for talking about trade, but I do not trust him, he has no history.Trump is asking you to trust him.

You don't have to trust Bernie. His record speaks for itself.
 
Interesting compilation that convinces me Bernie would be a really bad choice. Leaving the WTO, back to tariffs, impeding trade, both Trump and Sanders want to lead America back into the dark age it seems.
 
Interesting compilation that convinces me Bernie would be a really bad choice. Leaving the WTO, back to tariffs, impeding trade, both Trump and Sanders want to lead America back into the dark age it seems.

Yes, the dark ages. 40-70's America when wages used to go up. You know because labor is a commodity, and trade agreements add to the supply of labor for our markets, lowering the value of labor.
 
Interesting compilation that convinces me Bernie would be a really bad choice. Leaving the WTO, back to tariffs, impeding trade, both Trump and Sanders want to lead America back into the dark age it seems.
How can reexamining trade agreements be a bad thing?
 
Yes, the dark ages. 40-70's America when wages used to go up. You know because labor is a commodity, and trade agreements add to the supply of labor for our markets, lowering the value of labor.

Sure, go ahead. Maximize the value of domestic labor. I mean North Korea sure did.

I am not saying everything that goes along with Free Trade agreements is a good thing. I do not want TTIP, for example. But what free trade does is that it opens foreign markets for your companies. This creates jobs (for skilled people).

The 40s are long gone.
 
Sure, go ahead. Maximize the value of domestic labor. I mean North Korea sure did.

I am not saying everything that goes along with Free Trade agreements is a good thing. I do not want TTIP, for example. But what free trade does is that it opens foreign markets for your companies. This creates jobs (for skilled people).

The 40s are long gone.

Hey, I'm all for expanding trade, or trading with any country in this world, but we need wage, regulation, and tax based tariffs in those trade deals. For regulation and taxes it is a matter of sovereignty. We can't have corporations leveraging jobs as a poker chip, to reduce their costs.

This downward pressure on wages is not sustainable.
 
Then the economy needs to adapt. The relative importance of manufacturing will not rise again. And why should it?

Protecting employees and the working class is a matter of domestic laws.
 
Then the economy needs to adapt. The relative importance of manufacturing will not rise again. And why should it?

Protecting employees and the working class is a matter of domestic laws.

What needs to be fixed is our trade deficit. The only reason that deficit exists is because countries are out competing us, with low wages, and air you get to taste.

If China can do it better, that is fine, but they shouldn't be rewarded for sweatshop conditions, and pollution.
 
What needs to be fixed is our trade deficit. The only reason that deficit exists is because countries are out competing us, with low wages, and air you get to taste.

If China can do it better, that is fine, but they shouldn't be rewarded for sweatshop conditions, and pollution.

Germany has a huge trade surplus and is definitely not able to compete with China in terms of labor cost. This is because our companies depend on the world market and are export oriented.

I agree on pollution and sweatshop issues, but I do not think cancelling trade agreements is the solution.
 
Germany has a huge trade surplus and is definitely not able to compete with China in terms of labor cost. This is because our companies depend on the world market and are export oriented.

I agree on pollution and sweatshop issues, but I do not think cancelling trade agreements is the solution.

No, it is because Germany protects it's manufacturing base with trade tariffs.

We would throw the world into chaos if we just ended our trade agreements. It has to be a carrot and the stick routine. We offer actual free trade, not this corporate colonial protectionism, but with wage, tax, and regulation tariffs. Across the board for all countries who sign on. Same deal for China, that we give Japan, and Chile. Actual free trade, with tariffs that encourage wage, and environmental protection, instead of destruction.

Edit: I should add that currency manipulation needs to have a tariff penalty as well.
 
Last edited:
No, it is because Germany protects it's manufacturing base with trade tariffs.

We would throw the world into chaos if we just ended our trade agreements. It has to be a carrot and the stick routine. We offer actual free trade, not this corporate colonial protectionism, but with wage, tax, and regulation tariffs. Across the board for all countries who sign on. Same deal for China, that we give Japan, and Chile. Actual free trade, with tariffs that encourage wage, and environmental protection, instead of destruction.

Edit: I should add that currency manipulation needs to have a tariff penalty as well.
If there is wage, tax, and regulation tariffs then it's not free trade.
 
Yes, the dark ages. 40-70's America when wages used to go up. You know because labor is a commodity, and trade agreements add to the supply of labor for our markets, lowering the value of labor.

It is now 2016. The economy of the 40's-70's is long gone and not coming back. It is now a global economy and the US has to work in that system or we will get left behind.
 
No, it is because Germany protects it's manufacturing base with trade tariffs.

.

No, that is not true.

The way I see it, the following things help Germany have a trade surplus:

1) de facto non-tariff trade barriers (e.g. restrictive standards, market access restrictions in some service areas)

2) the Euro (de facto devaluation of the German currency - and before the Euro, careful monetary policy)

3) we do not (well, did not - will be interesting to see what happens with the Euro) use the credit sector to boost spending. People do not have five credit cards here. This also means that money is lent for investments, thus strengthening the conpetitiveness of our companies.

4) We have a 19% VAT rate. Completely legal under WTO rules. Applies to both German and foreign goods, but obviously is an advantage when exporting to countries with lower tax rates. The US is free to increase its VAT, too.

5) the highly specialized industrial goods sector with goods the world market needs and buys.
 
We would throw the world into chaos if we just ended our trade agreements. It has to be a carrot and the stick routine. We offer actual free trade, not this corporate colonial protectionism, but with wage, tax, and regulation tariffs. Across the board for all countries who sign on. Same deal for China, that we give Japan, and Chile. Actual free trade, with tariffs that encourage wage, and environmental protection, instead of destruction.

So you think the US would be able to have trade with the provision that the trade partners derogate their labour and tax systems in favour of US standards so that the US would not be as unattractive for manufacturing in comparison? You do realise that this would isolate the US tade-wise, right?
 
First of all, the thread's title seems to imply that populism is a good thing. It most certainly isn't and in my experience it brings nothing but failed policies and economic misery.

Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru.

Is that so? Then fuck that little goblin motherfucker right where the sun don't shine!!!

I hope Hilary kicks his sorry ass back to the hole where he came from.
 
Yes, the dark ages. 40-70's America when wages used to go up. You know because labor is a commodity, and trade agreements add to the supply of labor for our markets, lowering the value of labor.

Because everyone had to buy American back then with Europe and Japan being in shambles and the third world being undeveloped.
 
So you think the US would be able to have trade with the provision that the trade partners derogate their labour and tax systems in favour of US standards so that the US would not be as unattractive for manufacturing in comparison? You do realise that this would isolate the US tade-wise, right?

It already has, and failure for complying generates tariffs put back on.
 
Yes, the dark ages. 40-70's America when wages used to go up. You know because labor is a commodity, and trade agreements add to the supply of labor for our markets, lowering the value of labor.

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the value of labor has decreased due to the fact the labor in question isn't as valuable as it used to be? In the case of manufacturing jobs (take, for example, the auto industry), there is indeed a revolution coming, but it is not the "political revolution" that Bernie loves to harp about. Instead, we will be facing another industrial revolution, the likes of which will be driven by enhancements to artificial intelligence, big data, and 3D printing. The world will look very very very different by the end of the next decade and we may well see a massive reduction in the number of auto workers (on account of 3D printing and robotics becoming even more advanced) along with delivery drivers (on account of new technology like drones, self-driving cars, etc).

People like you love to cling to the old days when labor was valued due to the fact that the laborers were providing a service that was not easily replaceable. In the modern age, that no longer is the case. Even if you repealed all the trade agreements, would you then advocate stifling technological progress as well? How exactly do you plan on stemming the tidal wave of industrial change that is rapidly approaching?
 
Back
Top