(00:00:00) Good morning with news from Minnesota Public Radio. I'm William wilcoxon the Red Lake band of Chippewa in northern. Minnesota is building a state-of-the-art greenhouse to grow seedlings pine trees. The project is funded by a fifty three million dollar lawsuit settlement with the federal government the Red Lake band argued the Bureau of Indian Affairs mismanaged. The band's forests in the early 1900s, Jody. Bolillo. The tribes archivist says the band lost millions in Timber Revenue. (00:00:26) We would be Filthy Rich today had our forest been managed the way it should have been and so this green house now is giving us a new start. It's going to be up to us to preserve our resources and manage them in a way that the it should have been all (00:00:42) along Ridley plans to reforest 50,000 Acres of pine over the next 50 years part of the settlement award will be paid to individual band members in the next few months a group of landowners has removed a gate that restricted access to a secluded Harbor on the st. Croix River the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ordered the removal. Last month despite removing the gate the st. Croix Harbor Association may still fight the dnr's order. The association has until one week from today to appeal the agency's decision 911 call set off events that led to last week's fatal shooting of a Minneapolis Police Officer according to a transcript of the call Martha Donald's nice reported. The Donald was drunk and had threatened her with a handgun. Donald was subsequently killed in a shootout that also killed officer Melissa Schmidt more than two thousand people are expected at Schmidt's funeral service today in her hometown of Bloomer Wisconsin partly to mostly cloudy in Minnesota today with showers scattered through Central and Southern counties in a chance of thunderstorms in the Northwest high temperatures today in the 70s for the Twin Cities. Mostly cloudy a 30% chance of showers high in the mid-70s. That's news from Minnesota Public Radio. I'm William wilcoxen. Thank you William 6 minutes now past eleven a reminder that programming of Minnesota Public Radio is supported by Ordway Center for the Performing Arts presenting the eighth time Tony Award and 2-time grammy-award-winning. Musical Les Miserables August 7th through the 31st tickets available at 6512244222 and good morning. Welcome to midday on Minnesota Public Radio. I'm Gary eichten glad you could join us. Well President Bush is signing a bill today that will make it easier for the administration to negotiate trade deals with other nations primarily by limiting congressional oversight of those agreements to straight up and down yes or no votes under the trade promotion Authority which used to be called Fast Track Authority president negotiates an agreement Congress then has 90 days to accept it or reject it but it can't amend the agreement President says the agreement would help Revitalize the US economy but opponents say that it's going to hurt American workers and undermine labor and environmental standards around. The world today on. Midday. We're going to take a closer look at the trade Bill the road of role of trade in the US economy and the overall health of the US economy for that matter joining us here in the studio is Jean Bay who is the chair of the economics department at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. And also with us is at latterman or Consulting Economist. He's formally with the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. And of course his columns on economic issues appear regularly in the st. Paul Pioneer Press, as always we invite you to join our conversation. If you've got a question or a comment about this trade Bill trade in general the economy. Give us a call six five one two, two seven six thousand 6512276 thousand outside the Twin Cities. You can reach us toll-free and that number is 1-800-222-8477. 6,000 one eight hundred two, four two two eight two eight that latterman Gene Bay. Thank you for joining us today. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good to be here. Let me start here. This seems to be One of those classic cases of an issue with dueling statistics. Is there any consensus among economists as to whether these kinds of trade agreements actually help the United States as a consensus developed. I think there's been a consensus for a couple of hundred years among economists that trade is good. We haven't managed to convince the general populace, but I think commenting on your introduction. I think that one of the problems is that they arguments or the the debate is often about the wrong things. I think the president is wrong. If you if you look at a trade bill or trade agreements as something that would provide a short-term stimulus increased trade is good for the long-term growth and efficiency of the economy, but it's not something that one should look to 400. This is what we need to jumpstart things and I think the people who look at jobs are are again. In the boat, I think a lot year is in decades centuries of economic history show that that trade doesn't affect the total number of jobs per se what it really does do is affect the price of goods and services and increased trade means that resources get used more efficiently, which means that the goods and services households by are cheaper. Now, it does affect sort of what kind of jobs are country has but that really doesn't affect total jobs either either Pro or con over the long run. There are many other factors that are more important in terms of growth of employment. So I think we're often arguing about the wrong things here Professor bail and you agree with (00:05:42) that. Well, I agree that for a long time. We've had a consensus that trade is good after all the economy economics began as a profession because Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations as he was trying to figure out how economies became rich or poor. I think that overall a everyone has helped by trade and it is Just the economic indicators that are helped. I think that openness and communities are helped openness in countries are helped and overall standards of living go up when there's more trade and there's more openness. It isn't just economic indicators, but he's but Ed is absolutely correct. Just because overall employment isn't affected doesn't mean that there aren't some people who are adversely affected by trade and some people who are positively affected by trade and what I think we need to do as a country is make sure that even though the country benefits from trade the people who are hurt by trade are also somehow helped by the country as a whole (00:06:36) has something fundamentally changed in terms of how the global economy works that that affects this discussion. I mean, there was a so-called fast-track trade Authority from 74 to 94 you really hear all that much about it. So it was kind of their prior to that there wasn't any faster. And you don't hear much about the fact that there wasn't is something fundamentally change to put this as on the front burner as a hot issue. (00:07:09) I think that countries have decided that most of the countries that have done well have done well with export-led growth which means they sell to other countries and so it's become imperative for every country to try and sell to as many other countries as possible and not just raw materials but finished goods because that's where the value added is the highest and I think that's what's caused. The change is the understanding that that would that's what leads to greater wealth for the country as a whole. (00:07:35) I think there also is you know, they're sort of the great debate about globalization, even though nobody really defines exactly what they mean by globalization different people mean different things, but I think there is sort of more media coverage and more public awareness of you know, the effects of economic change and trade and so forth in different countries. I saw an interesting thing just the other day that actually as a percentage sort of of the of the global economy. We're just getting back to where we were before World War one. So we've had very globalized economy before in terms of trade among nations. And as a percentage of output worked we're getting back to where we were about a century ago, but it seems to be much more of a polemical thing today than it was in past decades. As you said, we had Fast Track Authority or trade promotion Authority for 30-some years and it really wasn't controversial. It's only in the last decade or so that it seems to have become a hot political issue. I'm curious. Just like the what this Authority is called has changed as I noted in the introduction used to be called Fast Track trade. It's a now it's trade promotion Authority that just a marketing gimmick on the part of supporters or is this approach in this bill fundamentally different than what we used to have. (00:08:57) I think it's just a marketing approach. I mean the reality is that countries were reluctant to negotiate with the United States because you have to be sure that when you're entering a negotiations that what's written down is what's going to pass otherwise people are going to be reluctant to negotiate at all. And so because of the fact that our democracy is a little bit different from the Parliamentary systems of Europe, for example, people countries would negotiate with us. I think it's the same. I think it's just a name (00:09:23) change. Yeah, it's just marketing. It's sort of like we also used to talk about there was this odd legal phrase most favored nation, and that was confusing. So now they've changed it to normal. Permanent normal trade relations. What is essentially the same thing? We're talking this our about the new trade bill that President Bush's signing this morning the trade promotion Authority legislation supporters have hailed it as a key component in building US economic strength opponents say that it's going to really hurt American workers and undermine labor and environmental standards around the world joining us here in the studio to talk about trade issues Gene Bay who's the chair of the economics department at Augsburg College and Ed lotterman columnist with the st. Paul Pioneer Press. He is a Consulting Economist. We as always invite you to join our conversation, six five, one two, two seven six thousand 6512276 thousand outside the Twin Cities 1-800 to for to to 828. Senator wellstone while at we should note both Minnesota Senators voted against granting the president this Authority Center wellstone among other things said that since 1994 three million actual or potential jobs have been eliminated because of the growing trade deficit 50,000 jobs in Minnesota alone significant. Number two percent of the workforce is is he (00:10:53) right about that? Well, he's looking at the losses but he's not looking at the gains and if you look at the two groups are most likely to be affected by it. What you're looking at is the Iron Range and the farmers and both of those groups have had problems not solely due to trade but to other problems overall it is right about this one of the one of the groups that suffered the most in the last 20 years has been high school graduates who have what we call General job-specific skills, like iron iron miners. That's a very that's a very that's a very specific skill, but it's not a general skill, though. People earn much higher wages there than they can in any other kind of occupation when those jobs go those people hurt but it's not a function of trade per se it's a function of other kinds of resources and changes in the economy as a (00:11:41) whole but the elimination of those kind of jobs. How can that be good for Americans because it price first of all prices of goods and services are lowered and secondly the economy as a whole is more efficient and there is no net loss of jobs. The people who lose jobs due to trade are very aware of it. But all of the people who gained jobs because of trade are not they just got a job because business is good at the firm. That's hiring and Senator wellstone can quote these figures but we have record levels of employment in in Minnesota and despite the you know, the recession we've had very strong job growth from say over the period he talked about over the last 10 years. We've had a very Good labor market here in Minnesota. And and some of that is related to the fact that that while you may lose some jobs to that are displaced by trade. You also gain many others and and on the whole I think for Minnesota the the net gains have been positive. We've gained more jobs that we've lost but what about the quality of the jobs again that high school graduate maybe who had a nice job making good money working in the iron iron industry and Northern Minnesota. Now the classic case always example being well now he has to go flip hamburgers and yes, he has a job, but it isn't the same job anymore. It does that happen a lot or again. Is that kind of anecdotal thing that we just don't hear that we hear a lot about well, I think you certainly hear about it and the and the iron miners are sort of the poster children of trade displaced workers, but most of the you know, again if you look at this period that the senator wellstone was talking about over the last AIDS the average job in terms of quality and pay is improved in Minnesota. We have more people employed in higher Tech and higher pay things and a lot of if you go around the Twin Cities here and and these small companies in little, you know, in the suburbs and little commercial developments here and there are employing thousands and thousands of people in many of these fairly high tech jobs are export-oriented certainly trade oriented. And so the, you know, the jobs that result from increased trade on the whole are at least as well paying as the jobs that are lost to trade but anecdotally the yes the iron miners who who earned good wages from unionized positions on the Iron Range and who are losing those some of them especially if they want to stay in northeastern Minnesota are not able to find the you know, as good paying jobs. They did before Professor may do we setting aside the issue of specific? Workers do trade agreements Help The Help the industries that are vital to the long-term strength of American again. I'm thinking for example of the steel industry. You can't just eliminate the steel industry. Can you (00:14:43) well, the steel industry is an interesting industry because part of the problem with the steel tariffs is that that worldwide there's a glut of steelmaking capacity because every country thinks exactly as you do that, we all have to have a steel making industry and nobody wants to cut everybody understands that there's too much capacity but no country wants to be the one who agrees to shudder their factories. And so I think that it's certainly true that for National Defense reasons. You want to have some sort of steel industry. The question is how much do you need to have and how much can you reasonably import and and have the lower prices one thing that Ed was alluding to earlier is that sure the steel tariffs allow the steelworkers to make more money, but all the companies that use steel now have higher costs and Some of those workers who are also well-paid may be laid off because they're their skills and and jobs will no longer be in as much in demand and that's the problem. The costs are often diffused and the benefits or the are seen by just a few people and that's why the discussion becomes so complicated (00:15:45) and I think that people miss the fact that that happens right here in Minnesota. I'll speak up for the the other paper I write for the Pioneer Press but the Star Tribune about a month or six weeks ago ran an excellent story about all the steel using companies in Minnesota that had been hit with with dramatically increased steel costs immediately after the Bush Administration steel tariffs went into effect and they were and they were laying off people and they were and they were seeing slower business. It's not sort of Minnesota versus someone else when you when you raise barriers to importing steel you hurt Minnesota companies as well as helping the Minnesota minor so it's a trade off your face, right? You're in the state. It's not US versus somewhere else in the nation. We're talking this our about trade. Let's get some listeners involved Our Guest said lotterman who writes for the st. Paul Pioneer Press season Consulting economists. Gene Bay is with us chair of the economics department at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. President Bush. Of course, this morning has signed the or is signing the (00:16:47) trade promotion (00:16:48) Authority Bill used to be called Fast Track Bill the nation president had that Authority from 1974 to 94 expired and President Clinton was unsuccessful in getting that Authority through Congress, but it's now past and is being signed into law today. We thought it would be interesting to find out more about what that legislation will do and talk about the broader role of trade as well. If you'd like to join our conversation, six five one two, two seven six thousand or 1-800 to for to to 828 Mark your first go ahead Place. Yeah, three quick ones. Number one. I'm hearing two. People who are in favor pretty much of the trade agreement or at least parts of it. Why isn't there a counter position like, mr. Reese from the center for America's second question is two weeks ago. I read in the paper that in Minnesota. There's 50% less job openings in a and I think in Middle higher category now is that if free trades working are we just looking because of our downturn that why is that situation now? That sounds quite dramatic to me. The third question is going back to the fast track. Why is this called Fast Track and to me it just has a really sleazy sound to a do they have to push it through so people don't really understand what it is and I understand that Ralph Nader offered $10,000 when Clinton was doing the fast track trade agreement to any Devore senator who would read the full Bill and take a test on it. There was one and he would donate that to their charity of their choice. There is one representative from Colorado who read it who was going to vote for it and changed his mind. So my question is how educated are the representatives who are supposed to be voting on these on this specific issue. Okay. Thanks. First of all job openings in Minnesota how and they're down substantially notes our caller is that because of the trade agreements that have been reached previously, I'd say it that's obviously I think just because of the business cycle there really hasn't been any change in trade agreements since the conclusion of the the or acquire round or the WTO. There's nothing that's happened in the last, you know, two or three years that would have caused this change from from where we were say two or three years ago and the That's just sort of a normal recession that we've had off and on for four centuries on the on the what Congress knows about fast-track. I think you could make the same Ralph Nader off or two congressmen on thousands of bills when you have a new egg bill or when you have a new welfare reform bill or something the Senators don't all read every jot. And Tittle of of any of these bills, I think the ones who are interested know the general Provisions, but a lot of stuff is pounded out in committee and and done by staffers and I don't think there is Anyone who reads through the text of any elected representatives who read through the text of all these bills if they Gene Bay if they did though would they be shocked to find out what's in there? I mean are there Provisions in here that truly do strike at the heart of the American economy and unpin heard American workers. (00:20:24) I don't think so. I mean Ed is right that I mean the joke. Is that in some ways that now we're going to have CEOs and CFOs sign the financial statements and attest to their truthfulness. If we had Congressman do that for all the bills that they sign there would be a lot of congressmen in jail. So I mean, I think he's absolutely right about that. I think that the reality is the Minnesota economy mirrors the national economy. And if anything our exports as a state has gone up every year for the last three years of anything trade has helped the state it hasn't hurt the state at all. And in the long run, we expect more and better jobs to be in the state and there's no reason to think that that isn't going to happen with or without trade. (00:21:05) I think the important thing to remember here is that this particular Bill gives the president authority to negotiate and it's a commitment by Congress to you know, for this up or down vote when negotiations are concluded. This is sort of a necessary condition for trade negotiations, but it's not sufficient and it's going to be a lot I think the Curve I think it's what actually comes out in negotiations. Who are we going to negotiate with and what sorts of agreements will be reached. I think we need to look at the nitty-gritty of those agreements rather than saying oh something momentous is happened today. This bill gives the administration a green light to go ahead and negotiate but it may be years before we see any any bills being presented to Congress. Can we expect Congress to read those agreements carefully? Well, some staff members will read them and certainly the lobbyists for all the affected groups will read them with a fine-tooth comb and will raise whatever objections they have, you know with our Senators and representatives ask and he shall receive our caller was wondering why Larry we saw wasn't on the air. He is on the phone coordinator of Minnesota fair trade Coalition Larry your comment, please. Hey Gary, how you doing? Yes fine. Thank you for taking my call. Yeah. I wanted to we have the Minnesota fair trade cocoa. I think as a slightly different perspective than your guests. I don't want to go too far into this. But in terms of job loss job gains us far by the by the 1990s generation of trade deals one place where you can look at actual numbers is in regards to NAFTA. There was a NAFTA trade adjustment assistance provision that specifically let's Department of Labor certify. What jobs have been lost by NAFTA and they've certified more than 300,000 jobs as having been lost in this country just due to NAFTA not due to all the other trade deals. We've been asking the companies who claim that jobs are being created by NAFTA to enumerate the jobs that they've put together and they will not do that and it would seem to us that the reason for that is that far more jobs. In fact have been lost and have been gained. So I mean II know the argument that well, you know, there are more get jobs gained, but we'd really like to see the numbers. Someplace sometime so that somebody could try to make that case in a concrete way. But what I want to look at more is the future trade deals that are going to be negotiated under this fast track that was just passed because you got a whole new generation of trade deals out there specifically one on Services, which seems like a strange Topic in the in the WTO. And then the expansion of NAFTA to the whole of the Americas called the FTA a free trade area of the Americas and in both of those cases, whereas the trade deals of the 90s targeted manufacturing workers and work toward pushing down wages globally in the manufacturing Industries. These are going to Target construction workers and and public sector workers government workers specifically in the public sector. They're going to Target postal workers. They're going to Target people who deal in water the people to provide Your water systems municipally wastewater treatment a lot of a lot of other Municipal jobs sanitation incineration Etc. All of these jobs. These new trade deals are going to force governments to privatize these the sections of the economy and and the privatization will mean displacement of large numbers of government employees and and the work being taken up by private firms that will pay far less. One of the things we'd always been saying is Fast Track sure but you've got to provide protections for workers rights and the environment and our democracy in these agreements and this fast-track bill was the worst fast-track bill that ever been put before Congress and it actually specifically forbids future trade deals from including enforceable protections for workers rights and the environment. And so I think we've got a real problem going into the future. You're here. All right. Thanks Larry. Thank you. NAFTA. Let's say kind of we don't have a lot of time here. And I think we only be able to deal with one of Larry's comments and we'll get back to the others after the break for the news this noon. What happened with NAFTA now Larry we says there's it's indisputable that many many jobs have been eliminated. He says there's no evidence to indicate that the jobs have actually been created because the people who claim the jobs have been created won't report the numbers. They're accurate true. (00:25:58) I think again, what's true is that the people who've lost the jobs apply for this particular program. So those numbers are very specific the jobs. The exports have increased to Mexico exports have increased to Canada. Canada is also involved in this Free Trade Agreement. And so those jobs are spread out and nobody's end its diffuse. Nobody's going to go and say well I hired two people here. I hired three people there and let's point out again that consumers also benefit because they have a wider choice of goods and services at lower prices. So the Benefits are spread over the economy as a whole not just to people as workers. (00:26:33) But if the industry's don't for whatever reason don't report that they've created some more jobs through increased exports then how do we know that they are? In fact, it's kind of a wash or whatever. Well, there are some studies that have been done that I mean the I don't think people dispute the fact that 300,000 people are qualified for the the adjustment assistance associated with NAFTA. I can't cite chapter and verse but there are some other studies done that that show, you know positive job gains from NAFTA that the but the the methodology of estimating exactly who got which job, you know, because of of a particular trade deal is very difficult. Hmm is mr. Lease right in guessing or estimating or predicting that future trade deals are going to really start hitting workers in the so-called service Industries particularly government. There's no I well I disagree with them on the I mean certainly the trade in Services negotiations May deal with. We'll deal with things that have not been dealt with before. We're already seeing however some service jobs that are for example in the United States are now breathing done other places. I got a telemarketing call from somebody who I was quite sure was in South Asia the other night we see increased programming done in cities like Bangalore India and so forth Insurance processing done in the in Barbados and Ireland so, you know services are becoming more International anyway, but I don't see anything in this particular bill that is going to be adverse to United States. It's going to open up US service firms to other to business and other nations more than it will open up, you know other nations doing doing service business here and I don't see it as requiring the absolutely requiring the privatization of you know, a water and sewer and things like that. That's Thing that is ongoing, you know, France has had private water systems and and for centuries always has never had Public Water Systems. Britain has gone to that it's happening in some developing countries, but it's not necessarily a required outcome of this of any proposed trade negotiations going on. Jean (00:29:02) Bay. Well, one of the things I'd like to say is one of the issues about worker protections and environmental standards is developing nations are often loath to enter into agreements because they don't want to be held to the same standards that are applicable to the US. They view it as an impediment to their growth as a country. And so while it's understandable that people in the US are worried about us workers, we really would be better off as a world if other countries improve their living standards so that it wasn't the US was a rich country and there were very many poor countries. We'd be better off with with many richer countries. I think (00:29:35) we're talking this our about trade in general more specifically the trade promotion. Legislation signed by the president this morning Ed. Laderman is here. He is a Consulting Economist formerly with the Minneapolis Federal Reserve. He writes a column regularly for the st. Paul Pioneer Press. Jean Bay is here chair of the economics department at Augsburg College in Minneapolis. We'll get to more of your questions in just a couple of minutes (00:29:59) programming on Minnesota Public Radio is supported by eagle lab dedicated to improving cleaning and sanitation standards for leading Hospitality Healthcare and food processing customers worldwide on the web at Ecolab.com. (00:30:13) A bit of investment advice from (00:30:19) China we take it for granted that companies are lying playing. The stock market is just like gambling. You have to cheat. I'm David brancaccio what happens when corporate corruption is old news that story in the rest of the day's business news later on Marketplace from PRI. (00:30:35) Marketplace is on the air at 6:30 here on Minnesota Public Radio, by the way, as a member, you can take advantage of special 241 ticket offers to learn more about this month's participating organizations call member listener services at one eight hundred two two eight seven. One, two, three, William Wilcox and joins us now with some headlines with you. Thanks Gary in the News Mayor Michael Bloomberg is unveiled New York City's plans for marking the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks the include former mayor Rudolph Giuliani leading the way as the names of those who died at the World Trade Center are read at a service Bloomberg says bag pipe and drum processionals will begin marching from each of the city's five boroughs. (00:31:13) The (00:31:13) morning and will converge at the Trade Center site. A moment of silence will be held at 8:46 a.m. Eastern time the moment when American Airlines flight 11 hit the Trade Centers North Tower at a town hall meeting with Pentagon employees today defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld made his case for a more aggressive hunt for terrorists Rumsfeld says Americans must stay vigilant to prevent future attacks at the same time Rumsfeld says it is clearly harmful to make public a report criticizing Saudi Arabia the report prepared by the Rand Corporation claims. The Saudis are active at every level of the terrorism chain Rumsfeld says the report does not reflect the views of the US government. There's were the eight month old hunt for mullah Mohammed Omar is hitting closer to home the governor of a central Afghan Province says a brother-in-law of The Fugitive Taliban leader has been captured the governor says other men with him fled into the mountains, but it's not known if Omar is among them. It's another volatile day on Wall Street today at 324 Point rise in the DOW Industrials is being met with skepticism by some analysts who Whether the market will hold this time before today the Dow and staged triple digit losses in its three previous sessions plans have been canceled for a combined heat and power generating plant in Grand Rapids. Minnesota Rapids power llc's is the state-of-the-art 225 megawatt plant would not have been cost-effective Rapids power is jointly owned by Minnesota Power and Bland in Paper Company the company decided last spring to delay seeking a certificate of need permit which would have led to further study of whether the project was feasible. The largest towboat in the country is making its way of the Mississippi River the motor vessel Mississippi is getting ready for a series of public hearings on issues affecting the river five-story boat stopped in Davenport, Iowa yesterday and will be in Dubuque today as it heads toward the Twin Cities partly to mostly cloudy skies over Minnesota today thunderstorms possible in the Northwest showers and thunderstorms scattered through Central and Southern counties highs in the 70s for the Twin Cities. Mostly cloudy a 30% chance of rain today high in the mid-70s right now in the Twin Cities. It's cloudy and 64. That's news from Minnesota Public Radio. I'm William wilcoxon. Thank you William. It's about 23 minutes before noon. This is midday on Minnesota Public Radio. We're talking this our about the trade promotion Authority Bill signed by the president this morning FastTrack is the name. It used to carry and supporters say it's going to do a lot to promote trade and strengthen the US economy opponents say it's going to hurt American workers and undermine Global standards and labor and environment of the rest. Jane Bay is with us chair of the economics department at Augsburg College at lotterman is he writes a column regularly for the st. Paul Pioneer Press on economic issues. They are here to share their thoughts on trade and specifically this trade Bill Jeanette is on the line from college. Will Collegeville rather with a question go ahead and Jeanette. I am not satisfied with the guests are addressing of the issue that protesters have charged the World Trade Organization and NAFTA. And that is that corporations really threatened. They have so much power now that they threaten environmental human rights and labor laws and they already have overruled laws in the United States and in Europe, they have overturned for instance European law to protect consumers from hormone injected beef. I have heard many other instances some of them on NAFTA on the special on NAFTA on by Bill Moyers on now, so I'd like them to organ to address this issue that trade agreements and generally Corp Global corporate power is threatening labor human rights and in the environment, thank you. Thank you. Jeanette said, well, I don't I don't agree. I thought it was interesting the beef issue and the caller is right that Complaint was made to the World Trade Organization by the United States about European limits on an American fed beef which is fed hormone, which are fed hormones is as a growth promote. This wasn't some corporate thing though. Certainly Meatpacking American Meat Packing plants were involved but the the Minnesota beef producers and the American beef producers. There were hundreds of thousands of American farmers who were involved in this so I don't see that as an example of that particular thing is any example of corporate power, but do do under these trade agreements generally does do individual Nations, including the United States give up essentially control over their own borders and lose sovereignty as a result there. I think one has to say yes, the they are voluntarily agreeing not to to give up their local laws but to agree to submit disputes. Ace a dispute settlement process and there are differences between say the United States and Europe or between the United States and Latin American countries in terms of food standard safety standards and health standards. And yes, when they sign a trade agreement you generally agree that when when trade disputes involve National laws you agree to to submit those to a dispute resolution mechanism. And when you when you when you go through that process if your rule if there's a ruling against you then you have to either change your National laws or suffer the consequences the penalty and there's nothing that requires you to change your laws, but you may be required to you may have to you know, put up with a A penalty that is that is indoor store that is allowed by the the WTO or whatever in terms of other nations can retaliate against you by placing restrictions on imports from you. Dean Bay. Is it fair to say that the real beneficiaries of these trade agreements are not the nation's involved really but the multinational corporations that do business across National (00:37:37) boundaries. I don't agree with that one of the things Economist like to talk about what we call normal Goods which is as income goes up. You want more of those and the two things that she was talking about our environmental concern and labor issues. And the reality is as countries become richer than people when people are really poor they care about food and shelter they don't care about whether there's pollution coming out of smokestacks. Once they have all the basic necessities. They start caring about whether or not there's clean air and whether or not there is clean water and they can fish in the streams when if Raid is not a Panacea but if trade helps poor countries become richer we can expect the people in those countries to push for increased Environmental Protection and for higher wages. That's just the natural course of every country in the world. And I don't see any reason for it to expect it to (00:38:24) change. Do these trade agreements make the poor Nations richer. Oh, yes. Yes, and and one of the earlier the mr. Weese the other caller mentioned that some agreement had pushed down wages internationally. I think that's just false increased rate that the sectors that trade in countries like Malaysia Thailand Taiwan, Korea are the higher paying sectors and the growing sectors and and trade is good for economic growth and trade is good for for wage increases in the developing countries. I'd like to just make one little historical Point here that the from the movement for Freer trade really began in Great Britain in the 1830s with something called the anti Corn Law League. That was led by a guy named Richard Cobden. Who was a It dissenter a Quaker and most of the people this was to remove restrictions on Imports integrate Britain and they say they saw it not as a crusade for economic efficiency, but as a moral Crusade for fairness for for poor people and and somehow we've lost that but Freer trade helps the poor more than the rich because it makes goods and services cheaper and there's no wait. We hear a lot about how only multinational corporations benefit but I think there's there's any evidence to show that corporations are more profitable, you know in a in the Freer trade environment than we had more restrictions, but but prices of consumer goods certainly do go down with for your trade bath your question, please Hello. Yes, you're on the air. Thanks for taking my call. I'm curious as to if they can if your guests can explain what what exactly has changed that Congress would deny this to President Clinton for six years. And then now Grant it to George Bush. I'm sure both presidents made the same arguments of why they should have this Authority what exactly has changed besides the the change in politics in the White House and this makes me very suspicious of granting The Authority. I see it as just a completely political move. Okay, given this Administration, especially with their lack of Ethics. Well there certainly was some horse trading we had a farm bill that was very disappointed agricultural Economist and very disappointing other nations. But evidently there were some horse trading involved in terms of giving large domestic subsidies, which please senators from Key States the same thing on some of perhaps on the steel tariffs. Oh there there certainly has been Little horse trading. I think that the Clinton couldn't get it because many Democrats like senators wellstone and Dayton oppose him on on freeing trade and the Republicans. Generally. We're trying to to apologize. I think Clinton wanted I mean it extended to you know, not confirming judges and appointments to the Federal Reserve board and so forth. So, I think that Clinton didn't have it in part because of opposition his own party and in part because of Republican obstructionism now the different party and in the presidency, the Republicans are supporting it and the president and the Democrats are divided on the issue, Jean Bay, would you agree (00:41:43) I agree but I also think it's imperative especially in the world today that if United States is going to lecture other countries about trade and open borders Etc that we put our own house in order and I think that's why it was important for us to do the fast track now that wasn't quite true. And Clinton was trying to push his deal through six years ago. That's a change also (00:42:02) do we actually enjoy free trade though under these agreements North Dakota Senator dorgan was noting for example, just as an example the Korean sell 217 cars here in America for everyone car that we sell in Korea. Now, maybe the Korean cars are better than the American cars, but that's a debt on the face of it seems to suggest that perhaps. Yeah, you can bring your cars in here, but don't you bother to send your cars over to us to is that a is that a fair observation but we sell thousands of tons of Minnesota wheat to Korea and don't you know purchase any Korean wheat or Curry and rice, we sell fruit to Korea from Washington State and so forth. And I mean the fact that you have free trade does not necessarily mean you sort of have to have to have equal exchange and exactly the same Goods. I mean the whole are you in for a treat for free trade I is based on the fact that there are differences between countries that what they're good in in producing and Korea's good at producing small cars. Now, we're good at producing sport utility vehicles, but they're not very practical in Korea. (00:43:13) But the other issue is that in fact what you have is the reality that countries are no country has absolutely free trade what you have is free trade and Freer trade. So if you're looking at subsidies everybody subsidize Farmers, the question is how much subsidy do they receive and what's fair and what's not fair. That's the reality is no country has doesn't have tariffs. No country doesn't have import barriers. Everybody is doing something the question is can we lower them a little (00:43:44) bit? Mmm. Can we assume in this instance? For example, though that the barriers to the US Auto industry and Korea are so high that no matter what the Auto industry did they could never sell a car over (00:43:56) there. Well, I mean Ed is right that those the roads are smaller. They're American car companies for years persisted in selling cars with the steering wheels on the wrong side in Japan and then wondered why they didn't sell very many and so some of it is our fault. Some of it is their fault certainly when you have tariffs which say that if the car cost $40,000 we're going to charge you 40 thousand dollars that's going to discourage you but again the question is how much are the barriers coming down overall and can we be can we have Freer trade between countries so that cus consumers really look at the true costs and benefits of every purchase. (00:44:31) I just want to make a comment here. I'm an old Brazil hand and their president Fernando. Henrique cardoso is a world-renowned sociologist who really made his reputation on the so called Dependency Theory arguing that poor countries were poor because of their economic relationships with wealthier countries, and now Fernando henrique has sort of come full circle and he's arguing for the fact that Brazil is a Mike development depends on more open markets in Europe and in North America and and arguing very strongly against imposing some sort of labor standards and environmental standards in trade agreements as a as a breach of resilience sovereignty and as a plot to keep poor countries poor. So I think the people who oppose trade here in the United States need to talk to their compatriots on the left in the developing countries because we hear two very different sets of arguments between opponents of trade here and and people who in the developing countries who see trade even people on the left in developing countries who see access to Europe and North America as important for their growth caller from Baldwin Wisconsin is on the line add quick comment here before we wrap up. Thank you very much. I find it disturbing that you have two cheerleaders for this legislation rather than having one pro and one con. I'll just make that My first statement I think would be a much better discussion. You've been asking some good questions Gary, but I think what's disturbing when when economists address this issue is that it's more than an economic issue. It reduces everything to Dollars and cents and there's quality of life issues and cultural issues that are very important to this discussion that are often overlooked when you're just looking at it in terms of gross national product and and and economic issues and I understand a good friend of mines an economics professor and he acknowledges that economic economics is very conservative field in general. But um, I also disagree with the with Ed's comment that leftist politicians and other countries are necessarily in favor of this kind of legislation. Okay at lotterman want to defend yourself. Well, I wouldn't say all leftist politicians, but certainly many And I don't know jeans politics. I'm sort of a moderate Democrat. I don't and I disagree with the caller that we've been presenting this purely in terms of dollars and cents. Of course, there are social issues involved. Of course, there are cultural issues involved but there's not necessarily anything in these trade agreements that need harm the richness or diversity of culture here or in other countries and many of the most visible things that people see in terms of globalization of Coca-Cola other places or the McDonald's stores in France that so offend this Joe Szabo very or whatever his name is are things that that have nothing to do with trade agreements. They are you know, they are expanding international business, but they're not necessarily the result of any Trade Agreement. Jean (00:47:49) Bay, I would argue that again for developing countries in order to retain their culture and their distinctiveness. It's imperative to make sure that people are not starving that people Well fed, well housed and their children are getting a good education that will enable our culture to survive much better than otherwise, (00:48:07) not much time here, but will this agreement and similar follow on agreements do anything about the burgeoning trade deficit and do we should we care about the burgeoning trade deficit I think history and economic theory of shown that that trade restrictions don't do anything to reduce trade deficits. This trade deficit will be reduced and it will be reduced in part by weakening of the US dollar which is already taking place in which is very good news for Minnesota Farmers and a lot of Minnesota businesses. But but Pro or con this Trade Agreement or other ones aren't going to have much to do with the trade deficit. (00:48:47) It's certainly true that competition is increased worldwide and the way to decrease the trade deficit is in part due to the European the dollar going down but also as long as are They're very competitive. We don't have anything to fear II think I'm optimistic. I think we can compete in the world. And I don't think we should think that we can't unless we put up high trade barriers (00:49:07) and Jean Beatty expect a rash of trade agreements to be reached. Now (00:49:13) know the Long's in Fast Track is somewhat of a misnomer the fact of the matter is this will take years. It's not going to be the ability not be going to the from the White House tomorrow. It's going to take years. It's and it's going to be very arduous work. Would you agree on? (00:49:27) Yeah and this the free trade area of the Americas is if if it's ever going to you know mature Isis is years and years off we might see a specific agreement with Chile fairly soon essentially sort of adding chili to NAFTA, but the sorts of big Global things that they started in Doha, you know under the WTO or the free trade every American's these are very long-term don't look for them during this president's Administration. Thanks for coming in today. Appreciate it our guests this our Jane Bay who's the chair of the economics? Armored at Augsburg College in Minneapolis at lotterman has joined us as well Consulting Economist and regular columnist for the st. Paul Pioneer Press joining us this first our midday to talk about the trade agreement the trade promotion Authority Bill signed by President Bush this morning supporters say it's going to be a big help to the economy opponents say it's going to be a big problem for American workers. Get ready they're coming. The planets best choirs are arriving in Minnesota this week for the world Coral Symposium though. The performance is at Orchestra Hall. Minneapolis are already sold out. You can still be there by clicking on Minnesota Public Radio dot org or keeping your radio set on Minnesota Public Radio. Turn into the classical music stations, Minnesota Public Radio at 8 o'clock tonight for a live broadcast from Orchestra Hall with the chamber choir of namur from Belgium and AMA belay acquire from Ontario Canada and again npr.org for complete schedule of our coverage of the world Coral spectacular.