No, I want to know if the average American voter sees their own country has having a global leadership role.

Traditionally, politicians have mostly ignored trade while campaigning, and done what the donors want after they're elected. People with enough money at stake to care about the details of trade agreements tend to be in favor of relatively free trade, while voters have a zero sum mindset.

It's not that voters are extraordinarily stupid. It's the nature of the political process, that all of us together are stupider than any of us.

Re "Favoring internation'l trade being a losing issue in every single precinct", that is sadly true, but it's also sadly stupid on the part of the voters.

One thing to remember about the laws of Economics is, they do not recognize political borders. By the same principle that folks in MN producing iron (steel) while the folks in FL grow citrus fruit, and they then get together and trade, and both groups profit (compared to the alternative of each state producing both commodities on their own. Thats known as the "law of comparative advantage" in Econ texts), it's also true between the U.S. and China.

If on that basis, voters are smart enough recognize the wisdom of interstate trade, it's stupid for those same voters to deny the wisdom of international trade, because the same laws and principles apply to both.

But hey, I'm quick to admit that most voters ARE that stupid.

You sell your fellow countrymen far too short.

Then your country is in worse shape than I even I thought.

But, I don't think your analysis is quite spot on.

most individuals in the US aren't capable of international trade themselves, and don't get any direct benefit.

JL

In the minds of voters, "winning" is the same as "having the other side lose". Trade (a situation where both sides gain if it happens, and both sides lose if it doesn't) is incompatible with that.

Are you actually suggesting that there's some possible political benefit to being seen as pro-trade? Certainly not in the United States.

Very funny.

If Democrats don't choose a presidential nominee who is capable of beating Trump on the issue of the economy, in general, and of trade, in particular, then Trump will probably be re-elected.

John [19]
Better to have a first world neighbor? That's what you think. It's what I think, too. But for normal people, well being is comparative. If the Joneses are worse off, that doesn't merely make you better off. It's the same thing as you being better off.

Most prominently, right after WWII.

Good points! If only Central America had better oil reserves, we’d be pumping tons of money into them! It is truly sad that we have done so little to help the countries closest to our borders.

Were you happier when only Americans were well-off??

When, exactly, were Americans the only people in this world who were “well-off”?

That is how the system works!! That is why the average standard of living world-wide is the highest it's ever been in all of history!! Would you prefer it to be otherwise?

Were you happier when only Americans were well-off??

Yeah, it's true, "working people" do indeed have it tough.

Their problem stems from the fact that the only thing they have to trade is their time and their talent, and in many cases that actually turns out to be only their time.

1.) Those low skill and wage assembly manufacturing jobs are now moving from China to Vietnam.

2.) Just like the clothing and shoe manufacturing jobs are moving from China to Bangladesh.

3.) As China develops more High Tech jobs. Mexico actually really missed the boat with its timing.

1.) That was happening BEFORE NAFTA.

2.) NAFTA actually came too LATE to really help Mexico as much as it could have.

3.) Most of the jobs (especially low end manufacturing) actually ended up going to China instead, not to Mexico. Mexico itself has even complained about this.

4.) The USA would be a lot better off if we DID help Mexico develop. It's better all around to have a first world neighbor on your doorstep, rather than a possible failed narco-terrorist run third world neighbor on your doorstep. Better for security, better for immigration, just BETTER.

5.) If we spent all the trillions of dollars wasted on nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan on Mexico, Central America and Colombia, so much closer to home, the USA would be a lot stronger in a geopolitical and strategic sense than it is now.

6.) It keeps being forgotten that the European Union had a HUGE POSITIVE impact on the economic development of Ireland, Spain and Portugal, as well as the democratization of Spain and Portugal, who were both previously authoritarian dictatorships, before their membership in the European Union. There is no reason why a true North American common market led by the USA and Canada could not have a similar effect on Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

However, when the 'parties involved' are nations (as opposed to individuals), specific individuals or small groups within the overall group can be adversely affected.

An example could be specif companies, or labor unions, who cannot compete with more-efficient foreigners.

However, even when such sub-groups are negatively affected, it's ALWAYS true that the benefits of free trade that accrue to the overall population FAR EXCEED the detrimental effects to the sub-group.

Law of Economics.

Setting aside whether one likes or dislikes the North American Free Trade Agreement, Donald's repeated disparagement of NAFTA as "the worst deal in American history" and then simply changing a few of its terms and re-branding it as the USMCA and referring to it in glowing hyperbolic terms is one of Trump's most obvious scams to date -- USCAM.

Calling it "NAFTA 2.0" gives far too much credit to Trump, because no sweeping redesign has, in fact, taken place.

Exactly! USCAM is the equivalent of putting cheese on a leftover side dish and then telling your gullible vegetable-hating base: "It's the most beautiful piece of pizza you've ever seen."

Heh.

I think I'll go and have a piece of pie.

Cheers!

We can be thankful that Team Trump didn't ruin it.

Unless they wish to lose the WH. Again.