Af: Christian

“Some of Mr Obama’s centrist supporters believe that his position on trade is purely tactical. (In Mr McCain, it would be called “cynical”.) I wonder. He has done nothing to modify it since winning the nomination. Perhaps he really believes that taxes, mandates and trade barriers can keep jobs at home and improve living standards.”Når nej, bortset fra bl.a. hér (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/14/obama-tells-workers-to-accept-free-trade/) og hér ( http://www.cnbc.com/id/23832520) hvor Obama bl.a. udtaler:”Sen. OBAMA: Well, look, I believe in trade and I’ve said it repeatedly. And, you know, I have voted for trade agreements. I voted for the Peru Trade Agreement, much to the chagrin or some people who objected about it. I voted for the Oman trade deal. It is true that I voted against CAFTA and I voted–and I am concerned about NAFTA because they don’t have the environmental and labor protections written into this legislation that ensure some basic standards, make sure that child labor laws aren’t being circumvented, making sure that you don’t have forced labor. I think it is important in our dealings with China to make sure that we are tougher bargainers. My problem with our trade agreements right now is not that I feel we can’t compete in the global economy. I think we’ve got the best workers on earth. I think the problem is is that we’re not very good bargainers. We–our trade mentality dates back to the ’60s and the early ’70s when we were so dominant in the world economy that basically if people sent their goods into this country without reciprocity, it wasn’t really going to have a dent on our economy. Well, the fact is China, Brazil, Korea, you know, they’re not your dad’s China, Brazil or Korea. They are now major competitors of ours. We should want real trade with them, but it’s got to be on a reciprocal basis. And we should put some pressure on them to improve how they treat workers, to deal with issues of environmental standards, to deal with safety standards. And part of the problem that we’ve got right now in our trade agreements is that US companies may move over there, get out from under basic safety standards that are important to US consumers, then the goods get shipped back into the United States and suddenly we’ve got toys with lead paint on them.That is not good for US consumers and I don’t think it’s good for business long term. But, you know, one notion I want to dispel is the notion that somehow I’m opposed to free trade. I think it is important for us to have a trade regime. And I think it’s good that China and India are growing. Ultimately they may be markets of ours and, you know what, there’s just a human element to wanting to see billions of people scratch their way out of poverty. That is in our long-term interest.”Jeg er ked af det, men set fra en borgerlig synsvinkel er det sgu et rimeligt fornuftigt synspunkt. Ja, der er sikkert hyperliberalister, der mener, at al det med standarder bare skal ignoreres, og så klarer markedet det selv med tiden. Men resten af os lever jo i den virkelige verden, hvor man godt kan forsøge at indskyde lidt fornuft og realisme i ens ideologi.P.S. Virkelig fantastisk research fra ham din ven Cook’s side hva! 😉