I have read some of the Wikileaks revelations about the allegedly scandalous statements of Hillary Clinton in their speeches to doors closed groups of bankers. And, to be honest, what said the candidate notdeserve more than praise.
What said Clinton in their speeches paid to bankers of Wall Street ispart of the thousands of post electronic stolen of the mailbox electronic of John Podesta, President of the campaign of Clinton, and givento know by Wikileaks with possible helps of the Government Russian,according to officials U.S.. The campaign of Clinton said that Wikileaks is helping openly to the candidate Republican Donald Trump.
An of the revelations that Wikileaks and the campaign of Trump hadpresented as more shameful for Clinton was its Declaration on the free trade supposedly made in a speech to a bank Brazilian in the 2013.
In that speech, according to Wikileaks, Clinton said: “my dream is a market common hemispheric, with free trade and borders open, in some time in the future”. Clinton added that “we need a concerted planto increase trade” hemispheric, and that “we have to resist protectionism”.
Bravo! Not could be more than agreement. Incidentally, that was theposition of all of the recent Republican and democratic Presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush. And it is a position that alsohas been taken up in part by President Obama, who supports the trans-Pacific agreement of economic cooperation, which would facilitatefree trade between the United States and 11 countries in Asia and Latin America.
Unfortunately, Clinton does not say that in public these days. Since she gave that speech in private three years ago, Fox News and the Trump campaign have become words “open borders” a synonym for destruction, crime and terrorism.
Today day, Clinton nor speak much in favor of the free trade becausefears losing votes in States industrial as Ohio. During his second debate, Trump repeated the assertion of that the Treaty of free trade between U.S., Canada and Mexico (NAFTA) “is perhaps the agreement commercial more disastrous of it history world“.
In rigour, NAFTA has been in large part a success for the three countries. As in any agreement on a large scale, there have been winners and losers, but in general it has been beneficial.
In first place, although some jobs manufacturing U.S. were transferred to Mexico, has created others, better paid, in United States. The exports of U.S. to Mexico today day support around 6 million of jobs us, according to a study of the Wilson Center.
Second, U.S. manufacturing jobs will continue to be largely disappearing by automation, and not by Mexico. Try to restore manufacturing jobs in the 1950s—rather than create new and better jobs – is a political illusion.
Thirdly, if Trump implemented his proposal to impose taxes of 35 to45 percent of U.S. imports from Mexico and China, its protectionist measures would provoke a trade war. The last time that there was a war commercial to level global was in 1929, and its result was the greatdepression.
Fourthly, if it weren’t for NAFTA, Mexico would be poorer, and moreMexicans try to cross the border. On the other hand, would have much less immigration illegal if a new agreement commercial facilitate them chains of supplies industrial in the Americas that benefit to all theparts, and developed the continent in a center of exports towards the rest of the world.
When these elections are finished, and – hopefully – Trump will go down in history as the closest that it was United States become a banana Republic with its own narcissistic autocrat, Washington should revive the idea of a hemispheric free trade agreement.
It is clear that none of this is politically correct these days, in the midst of the isolationist populism of Trump and the vote of the Brexit in Britain. But what Wikileaks and Trump campaign described as an explosive revelation of Clinton on a new trade agreement of the Americas isan excellent idea that should be resurrected.
Source: El Nuevo Herald