Rocking the wealthiest corners of the world, Brexit will now be in the hands of those who transition the UK government to withdraw from the European Union. The historic vote by the British people will have an impact on the US presidential election.
President Barack Obama advocated for the UK to stay in the Union. Obama and his fellows on the left have never been shy about attempting to manipulate internal politics, even in countries allied with the USA.
Questions for Americans now loom. Will there be a ‘Clexit’—an exit from the Clinton apparatchik running this country during President Barack Obama’s terms? Will we now have a debate on the impact of globalism and what many of us believe are trade deals placing a sizable portion of the USA at a disadvantage?
Recently I got into a dustup with a pundit who posted a short polemic on the glories of free trade. Libertarians and some Republicans tend to embrace trade at all costs, positing that even if you run a large deficit with a country, as long as you’re increasing exports, all is well.
The pundit implied I am an “economic illiterate.”
Pundits who write for status quo media are insulated from negatives produced by free trade deals, though not completely. Should he or one of his loved ones need Heparin, there’s a chance the results won’t be acceptable. For the second time, the USA is facing questions about Heparin contamination. We know an earlier contamination caused people to die in the late 2000s. We don’t know how many died. We do know China wasn’t exactly forthcoming about it.
Most of those who died from the initial Heparin contamination—it was deemed deliberate, by the way—were elderly. The new Heparin contamination issue will also affect mainly the elderly. That is one reason media haven’t promoted stories about it. If you’re older than 70, don’t look to government to protect you.
At present, the USA relies heavily on China and India for base products for our medicines.
What does all this have to do with an exit from the Clinton machine?
No one has been a bigger cheerleader for no-holds-barred trade deals than Bill Clinton whose global family foundation relies on wealth in the form of donations from just about any country in the world.
President George H. W. Bush may be viewed as the “New World Order” leader, but Mr. Clinton and his wife have taken the concept to new levels. As Robert E. Scott, senior international economist for the Economic Policy Institute pointed out:
“Jeff [Schott] and his co-author Gary Hufbauer claimed in 1993 that the agreement with Mexico would “create about 170,000 net new U.S. jobs” by 1995. President Bill Clinton used this research to claim in 1993 that Nafta would “create 200,000 American jobs within the first two years” and “a million jobs in the first five years.” Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush made similar claims for the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization. President Obama claimed that the U.S. Korea Free Trade agreement “would support 70,000 U.S. jobs.” Unfortunately, these claims have not panned out.”
Scott and Schott debated trade deals in a feature at The New York Times. Their analyses are worth a read. Even Schott who is a free-for-all trade guy—he worked for the US Treasury under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter—admitted trade deals can displace US workers.
Consider Hillary Clinton’s ongoing diatribes against wealth disparity. Fact is she and her husband helped make it worse. Scott wrote:
“Workers without a college degree make up more than two-thirds of the U.S. labor force, roughly 100 million people. Thus, the growth of globalization, as encouraged by more than 20 U.S. trade and investment deals, plus the proposed T.P.P., is responsible for transferring approximately $180 billion per year from low- and middle-income workers to those in the top third, and especially to those in the top 10, 1 and 0.1 percent of the population.”
Calling for a “reset” on trade, Scott who absolutely favors common sense trade, explained the perils of our currently poorly structured deals, how those deals benefit “multinational companies and large investors.” Scott also explained why ridiculously complex deals don’t benefit our countrymen.
Currently the only candidate brave enough to go near this subject is presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. Pundits like the clueless fellow I attempted to exchange ideas with follow the prescribed path on issues—such media personalities think inside a very small box.
In 2001 shortly after the attacks on America, Bill Clinton spoke to members of the political class who adored him at Harvard. Clinton suggested terrorism occurs because of poverty—we know that isn’t true, those of us who take time to research international killers—and he also implied the US government should pretty much act as a global charity. We’ve tried it Mr. and Mrs. Clinton’s way, and that model hasn’t benefited most Americans.
Will Brexit produce a Clexit?
For the good of all my fellow countrymen and women, I certainly hope so. The last thing we need is a continuation of the Clinton model that has not served us well under Obama or after Bill Clinton’s presidency. Trump is the only candidate in my lifetime to question globalism, including the forced migration that often results from countries overtly meddling in each other’s affairs and from exploitation benefiting top controllers of wealth around the globe.
On a globalism and trade reset, Trump is right. Again.
Our trade deficit with Mexico, for April, 2016, was $37.4 billion.
Additional reading: US trade deficits by country
(Commentary by Kay B. Day/June 24, 2016)