Hillary Clinton

The Bogus Concerns Behind Hillary Clinton's TPP Switcheroo

She'll even sell out her husband's trade legacy to get elected.

|

Some myths simply refuse to die. The idea that free trade hurts middle-class Americans is one of them. And one

Hillary Dirty Dancing
DonkeyHotey / Foter / CC BY

reason is that previous busters of this particular myth—such as Hillary Clinton—have now become its chief peddlers.

There was a time when Clinton used to lecture unions about the wonders of free trade, insisting, "The simple fact is nations with free-market systems do better." Yet there she was at the Democratic presidential debate last week repudiating the TPP trade pact with 11 other Pacific Rim countries—a sprawling trade agreement that she herself painstakingly helped President Obama negotiate, and once called the "gold standard" of trade deals. Why repudiate it now? Because, she said, she couldn't "look in the eyes of any middle-class American and say 'this will help raise your wages.'" (Translation: "I badly want labor to endorse me instead of that socialist cad Bernie Sanders.")

That trade and globalization have decimated the American middle class has become conventional wisdom among union-friendly liberals. But if TPP is anything like the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)—Hillary's husband's crowning achievement, which got the ball rolling again on free trade in this country—it'll actually prevent labor from driving the middle class into a hole.

Ross Perot famously warned that NAFTA would create a "giant sucking sound" as American jobs were stolen by Mexico. This fear was not completely unfounded, given that unions in their heyday had bid up U.S. manufacturing wages beyond globally competitive rates. Hence it was not implausible that once tariffs impeding the cross-border flow of goods were removed, automakers and other manufacturers would take their factories and run for the nearest exit doors.

But that didn't actually happen.

A 2004 Congressional Research Service brief found no net negative impact on aggregate employment levels in the 10 years since NAFTA. Indeed, even the most dire estimates by the labor-friendly Economic Policy Institute could attribute only 500,000 job losses to post-NAFTA trade annually. This works out to less than 3 percent of the 15 million permanent jobs that the American economy routinely wipes out every year due to technological advances, shifts in consumer demand, and domestic competition.

If fears about job losses from NAFTA have proven to be overblown, worries about middle-class wage cuts turned out to be completely false.

A 2007 Cato Institute study by Dan Griswold comparing appropriate benchmark years in business cycles found that average real wages of American workers didn't go down but up by 8.2 percent in the previous decade. And hourly compensation—which includes wages and benefits—rose by a whopping 22 percent. What's more, median household incomes in 2006 were up 6.1 percent from 1996.

So why didn't NAFTA drive middle-income Americans to the poor house as predicted?

The best guess is that the economic gains from the agreement were large enough to accommodate labor-induced profligacy. Standard trade theory predicts that trade enhances the productivity of all parties by pushing them to specialize in those industries where they have a comparative advantage—or where they can get the highest possible returns. The result is a far more sophisticated division of labor across countries as capital and labor are redeployed from lower- to higher-return activities.

Take autos, for example. Before NAFTA created a unified market among Mexico, Canada, and the United States, cars were by and large produced and sold in the same country because tariffs bumped up prices too much when cars crossed borders. The upshot was a relatively small consumer market and a small manufacturing footprint.

NAFTA changed all that. It allowed American automakers to generate new efficiencies from a single manufacturing platform spanning three countries. Ford or General Motors could obtain engines from Mexico, transmissions from Canada, and then build the car in America, notes Michael Robinet of Michigan-based consultancy IHS Automotive. This allowed them to not just cut production costs but also improve product quality and find a bigger market for each vehicle.

This might have postponed the day of reckoning for the bloated retiree legacy costs that labor unions had tacked on over the years. In other words, far from decimating the much-vaunted union-generated American middle class, NAFTA might have given it a new lease on life.

TPP's effects are hard to predict given that the pact has been negotiated in secret, and details are only now filtering out. There might be genuine reasons to worry about this deal.

As Vox's Tim Lee has noted, industry and labor groups are increasingly using multilateral trade pacts not to advance free trade but to push their own interests through special protections. Hollywood wants to slap fines on trade partners that offer insufficient copyright protections and Big PhRma for insufficient patent protections. Unions, meanwhile, want these deals to impose First World wage and workplace standards on emerging countries, wiping out any potential gains of trade for both America and its trade partners. But these are reasons opposite to the ones that Clinton has cited for opposing the deal.

The fact of the matter is that a reasonably clean TPP, Berkeley's liberal economist Bradford DeLong notes, would boost global wealth by $3 trillion with no evidence of any "downward pressure on real wages in the United States." It would be a win for the world and a win for America.

President Obama opposed NAFTA when he was campaigning—only to switch course once in the Oval Office. Let's hope President Hillary Clinton has a similar change of heart on TPP and trade if and when she assumes office. Pulling switcheroos, after all, is a special talent of hers.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Is America the New Weimar Republic? Yeah, no.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  2. Hope she has a change of heart? These people have no convictions, only a desire for power. They’ll say and do whatever it takes to realize their desire. I’m convinced a majority of politicians would happily put a 9mm through their mother’s ear if they thought it would get them enough votes.

    1. I perceive HRC has no heart.

      1. No heart, no soul.

      2. It’s been said that conservatives have no heart and liberals have no brain.

        HRC lacks either.

  3. She’ll even sell out her husband’s trade legacy to get elected.

    That cunt will sell out literally anything and anyone to get elected.

    1. Soulless power hungry sociopaths tend to do that.

  4. At least we’re getting back to attacking the democrat candidates instead of three articles per day bashing Trump.

  5. I bought brand new BMW by working ONline work. Six month ago i hear from my friend that she is working some online job and making more then 98$/hr i can’t beleive. But when i start this job i have to beleived her
    Now i am also making 98$/hr if you want to try just check this out

    ————– http://www.HomeJobs90.Com

  6. Nothing I’ve read about the TPP suggests it is actually a free trade deal, rather it stifles trade.

    1. I agree.
      The main purpose of this agreement seems to be locking in absurdly overlong copyright terms on behalf of Hollywood campaign donors.

  7. Hillary two-faced?
    Really?
    Only two?

  8. While at the State Department, it is clear Clinton used her position to sell access to the government in return for donations to her private family slush fund.
    Once we get into the contents her “wiped server”, we are sure to find so much more than yoga and wedding correspondence.
    Nobody on either side doubts this, which is why Clinton has gone to such great lengths to hide/obfuscate/delay/lie about her server.
    And yet Regressives can’t wait to put this corrupt hack in the highest position of power in the world. Who ever said Liberalism is a disease had no idea how far short of the mark they fell, it is more like a cult religion, the kind where you get to drink the spiced KoolAid.

  9. I am all in favor of free trade. However, such an agreement should not take more than a sentence or two. All the additional sentences limit free trade in some way or other. TPP has way too many sentences.

  10. “That trade and globalization have decimated the American middle class has become conventional wisdom among union-friendly liberals.”

    Empirical fact: From 1828 until the 1960s Americans were protected by tariffs. During that time there was a continuous increase in American blue collar wages. Before the 1970 as far back as we have data there was not a single decade in which real wages did not increase. Not even the decade of the 1930s. Since 1970 we have not seen a single decade in which the real wages of blue collar workers increased.

    If the blessing of free trade are so great why do so many people unable to see them. How can something so hard to see really be a significant benefit?

    Even if you are correct and free trade is a benefit and we lose it would we even notice?

  11. This article should do more than pay lip service to the fact that the TPP is very like not, in fact, a “Free Trade Agreement.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.