February 9, 2004
STEELER'S WHEEL AND DEAL: (via mc):
U.S., Australia Agree on Free-Trade Pact (Paul Blustein, 2/08/04, Washington Post)
The United States and Australia announced yesterday that they concluded a free-trade agreement, one of the biggest in a series of two-way deals the Bush administration is pursuing with a number of countries aimed at tearing down barriers to international commerce.
One day the libertarian Right will look up from its steel tariff scab and realize they've been whining about the free-tradingest administration in our history. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 9, 2004 9:02 AM
Big whoop -- I'm sure there are a lot of political downsides to trade with Australia. Call me when Bush is willing to take on the kind of risk that his father and Clinton assumed with NAFTA. Given that the GOP owes its 1994 landslide in part to anger over Clinton's free-trade policies, it's no surprise that the party has lost interest in the issue.
Posted by: Charlie Murtaugh at February 9, 2004 9:46 AMNAFTA and GATT were Reagan initiatives passed by the GOP in Congress.
Posted by: oj at February 9, 2004 9:51 AMAnd give me (and all the Fanny Mae workers who lost there jobs here) a call when the Administration quits caving in the sugar lobby.
Posted by: Rick T. at February 9, 2004 10:00 AMCharlie - OJ's right - NAFTA was pushed by Reagan and Bush Sr but not completed until Bush left office hence Clinton signed it.
Rick T - what do sugar tariffs have to do with Fannie Mae jobs?
My understanding is that Fannie Mae was under increasing cost pressure. Sugar consumers have been fighting the producers for quite some time.
The producers won.
Bush's trade record is a mixed bag, but leans positive. With so many anti-trade conservatives, it is a record that the administration can't really advertise.
Chalk it up to economic illiteracy.
Posted by: BB at February 9, 2004 10:45 AMWe pay 13 cents per # more than on the world market.
(Thank you ND/LA/FL).
At one time, Chicago was arguably the candy capital of the US, over 90 mfgrs, including small specialty candy cos.
We've lost Brach's, Marshall Field frangos to Penn. and now Fannie May.
We still have Wrigley, Ferrara Pan, Jelly Belly and Tootsie Roll.
Even BILL DALEY as COMMERCE secretary couldn't break the lobby to help Richard I.
Life Savers are now made in Canada because it's cheaper. We're talking good-paying low-skill union jobs. And I wouldn't doubt when Hershey's was sold it would be moved out.
Posted by: Sandy P. at February 9, 2004 11:02 AMGradually get rid of all farm subsidies and a lot of problems will be solved.
Posted by: genecis at February 9, 2004 12:53 PMSorry, I understand Fannie Mae to be a quasi-government agency involved in purchasing and reselling mortgages and not having much to do with sugar.
I agree that sugar and other subsidies need to be cut but at least this, and the other free trade agreements, are a step in the right direction.
The politics sounds about right - I remember a story saying that in the '02 LA senate race the Dems floated a story that Bush was going to cut sugar controls which helped to sink the GOP candidate (Terrell)
AWW:
Sorry, Fanny May. Not Fanny Mae. Chicago papers have been full of stories of people bemoaning their closing. Which sort of begs the question.
Posted by: Rick T. at February 9, 2004 3:36 PMIf you Chicagoans want to make cheap candy with slave-grown sugar, be up front about it.
There is no "world price" for sugar, which of all commodities behaves the least like the ideologues would have it behave.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 9, 2004 10:33 PMI want candy.
Posted by: oj at February 9, 2004 11:06 PM