- Hello Customer - Log in or Register!
Unless President Obama can persuade the Democratic members of Congress to change their mind, a vote on the so called Fast Track Authority and the two trade agreements waiting for it may not happen this year and perhaps not during the remainder of this presidency.
The president's signature legislation encountered two problems: a growing Democratic concern about income inequality and public anger at corporate America for pursuing strategies that make it easier to outsource American jobs and suppress wages while protecting the pay packets of the wealthy.
The Democrats put themselves in a bind by voting against the extension of legislation that would provide $100 million to workers who lost their jobs because of trade. Without a yes vote the funds will run out and these workers will try to make ends meet until new jobs are found. The House could separate the different bills but that seems unlikely because the Democrats are against the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement or anything similar unless it provides unspecified protections for American workers.
However there isn’t protection for American workers, at least not one that can be built into an agreement. Yes, trade agreements have contributed to job losses. But they also have created jobs--higher paying ones--for specifically skilled workers. Other economists argue that the trade agreements we have are job neutral--losses and gains are equal.
It is hard to tell who is right, or wrong. Those in favor of trade agreements were not able to marshal arguments as to why they are good, or at least not as bad as their detractors claim. Proponents began the public education too late and it was soon time to vote.
The talking points that weren’t
The spinmeisters might have used these taking points:
*Many small and midsize companies know that lower tariffs mean they will sell more to trade agreement partners, preserving and adding good paying jobs. The harmonization of standards enshrined in trade agreements help small and midsize companies sell more, especially manufactured products made here.
*Many small and midsize companies are suppliers to bigger companies that need the agreements in order to sell more or to fend off foreign competitors whose governments will gladly sign a trade agreement that the U.S. rejects.
*Almost every manufactured item today relies on a global supply chain that benefits workers here and elsewhere. The supply chain will not be broken if trade agreements didn't exist, but the absence of them will make products more expensive and fewer of them will be sold.
*Globalization is far more consequential in disrupting labor markets and will continue to do so with or without trade agreements. With them there will be business and investment opportunities that will not exist without them.
*We are in the midst of other disruptive change that policy members, politicians, the media and labor union leaders aren't connecting the dots. Automation is one. Increasing education and skill levels around the world is another. Falling investments in U.S. Infrastructure and basic research is another. The growing gap between rich and poor is a serious problem and righteous grievance but it's not the fault of our trade policies.
We are trying to solve the wrong problem, and trade agreement bashing only serves to distract us from the urgent, heavy lifting that needs to be done.
| Product Model | Inside Diameter | Outside Diameter | Thickness |
| BK0306T2 NTN | 3 | 6.5 | 6 |
| HK0306T2 NTN | 3 | 6.5 | 6 |