<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Is Obama a protectionist?</title> <atom:link href="http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/11/19/is-obama-a-protectionist/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/11/19/is-obama-a-protectionist/</link> <description>Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2</generator> <item><title>By: Douglas Ostrom</title><link>http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2008/11/19/is-obama-a-protectionist/comment-page-1/#comment-86</link> <dc:creator>Douglas Ostrom</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 00:39:08 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://eastasiaforum.wordpress.com/?p=2125#comment-86</guid> <description>Obama will have his hands totally full dealing with the economic crisis for the first few months if not his entire first term.  One could argue that some of the policies he will take are protectionist, especially with regard to the automobile industry, but the intention will not be protectionist as much as it will be a part of a broader effort to stabilize the economy.  The world trading system would not be protected if the U.S. auto manufacturers were to collapse, bringing down with them additional financial institutions and engendering a huge jump n U.S. Federal indebtedness.
Clinton was explicitly pro-NAFTA in the 1992 presidential campaign. I can remember my relief when he made his announcement.  He did want to add protections to it, but mainly he was seen as pro-trade in contrast to people like Gephardt.  On balance, his administration was far more effective pushing a free trade agenda than the current Bush Administration has been, rhetoric notwithstanding.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obama will have his hands totally full dealing with the economic crisis for the first few months if not his entire first term.  One could argue that some of the policies he will take are protectionist, especially with regard to the automobile industry, but the intention will not be protectionist as much as it will be a part of a broader effort to stabilize the economy.  The world trading system would not be protected if the U.S. auto manufacturers were to collapse, bringing down with them additional financial institutions and engendering a huge jump n U.S. Federal indebtedness.</p><p>Clinton was explicitly pro-NAFTA in the 1992 presidential campaign. I can remember my relief when he made his announcement.  He did want to add protections to it, but mainly he was seen as pro-trade in contrast to people like Gephardt.  On balance, his administration was far more effective pushing a free trade agenda than the current Bush Administration has been, rhetoric notwithstanding.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
