Dylan Ratigan Knocks Down Little Luke's Statement That Trade Agreements Create Jobs. You Tell Him, Dylan!

Although we're being told the three pending trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia will result in jobs for Americans, that's not true. And Dylan Ratigan really let Little Luke Russert have it when he spouted that line. Ratigan's

up

(h/t Heather.)
Although we're being told the three pending trade agreements with Panama, South Korea and Colombia will result in jobs for Americans, that's not true. And Dylan Ratigan really let Little Luke Russert have it when he spouted that line. Ratigan's also writing about trade agreements on his blog:

If you want to know why politicians are so eager to pass a free trade agreement with Panama this month, type “Panama offshore banks” into Google and look at the paid ads. What you’ll see is advertising by law firms and banks that will offer you help to set up a secret corporate structure in Panama immune from taxes.

The State Department knows this. Here’s how the State Department described the Panamanian economy in 2006 in a secret memo revealed on Wikileaks.The Panamanian “incorporation regime ensures secrecy, avoids taxes,and shields assets from the enforcement of legal judgments. Along with its sophisticated banking services, Panama remains an environment conducive to laundering the proceeds from criminal activity and creates a vulnerability to terrorist financing.”

Yet, here’s how President Obama describes the three NAFTA-style Free Trade agreements that Congress is attempting to ratify later this month, one with Panama.

“There are a few things that we can and should do right now to redouble our efforts on behalf of the American people. Today, Congress can advance trade agreements that will help businesses sell more American-m­ade goods and services to Asia and South America, supporting thousands of jobs here at home.”

This week, I’ll be covering the free trade agreements pushed by the politicians, along with the Huffington Post. The Panama FTA is one of three trade agreements up for debate and passage later this month. The agreement is supported by the business community and opposed by the AFL-CIO, and will be scored by unions. The Panama government itself wants this agreement desperately, and has complained about all of its lobbying spending in DC ($6.2 million).

Panama is too small as an economy to really impact jobs in the United States, the real value of the FTA is strategic and has to do with American geopolitical aims. For the business community, Panama is a great place to hide their money.

Panama is the second largest tax haven in the world, according to a secret State Department memo released by Wikileaks. There’s a deep irony in the US relationship with Panama. The country’s cooperation in the war on drugs is considered pivotal, with the State Department arguing that Panama is more important to the US than we are to Panama (see this cable). One third of all ships are flagged in Panama, and Panama lets the US board those ships to search for drugs. But for some reason, Panama’s position as a haven for drug money is not a particular concern.

What else do you need to know? Here's Leo Gerard, president of the Steelworkers Union:

"These three FTAs will undermine our economic recovery, further decimate American manufacturing and jobs and deepen the economic insecurity and devastation faced by workers across the country."

A number of factors make the FTAs, as presently negotiated, a one-way street. The so-called environmental protections that are built into the agreements simply aren't enforced. So American companies who can build a factory in another country, knowing they can simply flush toxic waste into the local streams with no legal consequences, are obviously going to do it.

They're trying to sell these current proposed agreements as job-friendly because they include additional funding for TAA, the program that helps dislocated workers who lose their jobs as a result of the the FTAs. But that's not enough to make up for the jobs that will be lost.

The banks want these agreements. Workers don't. Who wins?

About Susie Madrak

Comments

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Please refer to our Terms of Service for information on our posting policy.