Question for anti-free traders and Dean supporters

[DealsGapRider]

I don't have particularly strong feelings on this score, but I suppose if someone were to ask me, I'd say that I support Free Trade. My question concerns the statements by many progressives that they would require foreign nations to abide by certain environmental and labor standards before being allowed to trade with us.

My gut response to this idea is that it's terribly arrogant, and lord knows there are few DUers who don't have something to say about US arrogance. Isn't this basically saying, we won't trade with you until you rise to standards that WE deem acceptable? Well, Christ, many nations simply cannot maintain the kind of labor and enviro standards that we feel are essential because they're too poor. Indeed, they need trade just to pull themselves out of the Third World. Isn't this penalizing poor countries? Also, as far as labor, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many of the people who work in conditions that we would consider abominable are damned happy to have those jobs. If we were to cut off trade with such countries, wouldn't we be hurting a lot of poor people?

Note this excerpt from the New York Times about the Dem debates:

"Senator Lieberman criticized Dr. Dean's proposal ...that the United States should enter trade agreements only with countries that share its labor, environmental and human rights standards.

'The Bush recession would be followed by the Dean depression,' Mr. Lieberman said, noting that one in five American jobs are connected to international trade.

Dr. Dean responded that he thought Mexico and other Latin American countries would be willing to abide by international labor and environmental standards, citing the European Union as an effective coalition of countries with such agreements."

Europe's wealth gives it the luxury of setting high labor and enviro standards, something that is not enjoyed by countries like Indonesia and Uganda.

[greyl]

1. I'm not anti-free trade exactly - just anti-corporate bastard outsourcing.

That's the huge problem that needs to be addressed somehow.

ATT, Dell, several State Unemployment and Welfare offices and and other entities are outsourcing phone-reps to India bigtime - and laying off American workers. Do consumers see a piece of the huge savings? Probably not. We just see bigger corporate mergers and reduction in customer service.

Did you see the Top 10 Conservative Idiots exposing the Repub campaigns for outsourcing fundraising telemarketers overseas? WTF?!

[wuushew]

2. One theory of trade holds that

The industrialized world with its very productive agriculture and falling birth rates should be a target to which people want to immigrate. Instead of a blanket of western style industrialization worldwide there would always be a set of rich countries and poor countries. I am not saying this is desireable but it is a system that would be stable.

[HereSince1628]

6. Another theory says exploited people have memories like elephants

and they get angry, and anti-capitalistic. The end result is that many of these countries experience civil war. Think about southeast Africa. The big capitalists are having their lands and wealth seized.

Development requires that companies invest in these places, but the US will do itself no favors by facilitating companies and countries to adopt practices that concentrate and extract wealth while exploiting the poor and destroying their landscapes.

[dfong63]

3. not really

My gut response to this idea is that it's terribly arrogant, and lord knows there are few DUers who don't have something to say about US arrogance. Isn't this basically saying, we won't trade with you until you rise to standards that WE deem acceptable?

it's no more arrogant than saying we won't trade with human rights abusers. it's no more arrogant than saying we won't engage in sports competitions with countries that allow their athletes to use drugs. it's no more arrogant than me (as an individual) saying i won't eat at a restaurant that allows smoking.

it's certainly no more arrogant than the current GATT/WTO regime that essentially imposes least-common-denominator laws on all member countries.

it's no more arrogant than the simple observation that our trade/patronage is a privilege, not a right, to other nations/establishments. it enriches and rewards them, and can be used as an incentive for improving their standards, instead of (essentially) rewarding them for having lower standards.

Also, as far as labor, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if many of the people who work in conditions that we would consider abominable are damned happy to have those jobs. If we were to cut off trade with such countries, wouldn't we be hurting a lot of poor people?

listen - if you're running for office in THIS country, you'd damn well be more concerned about how your policies will affect jobs and hurting poor people in THIS COUNTRY. and i can tell you how the fraudulently-named "free trade" policies have LOST jobs and HURT poor people right here in the USA.

[DealsGapRider]

13. Here's the difference...

"it's no more arrogant than saying we won't trade with human rights abusers."

Human rights abusers can stop abusing human rights anytime they wish. Poor countries can't just establish stringent environmental standards if they don't have the money to do so. Same with labor standards. It's a question of money and in many cases, developing countries can't afford to do what we consider basic.

[BurtWorm]

14. Why do developing countries need lower standards?

Because if their standards on labor and the environment were higher Western companies wouldn't have an incentive to come and exploit them.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. I believe their low standards are the reason they are poor

OH and many are not poor so much as their wealth is concentrated at
the top. We had poverty like that before we raised our standards. People who buy that argument generally haven't studied American
History well. We didn't adopt the new deal because we were swimming in money.

[aneerkoinos]

39. sidestep

"it's no more arrogant than saying we won't engage in sports competitions with countries that allow their athletes to use drugs."

In that case, shouldn't US cansel all national sports comptetitions and all other nations should not to engage a competition US is taking part in? ;)

(Last in Paris games it came out that many top US athletes have been busted by US authorities and then pardoned and allowed to continue competing without even notifying the international authorities, which raises serious questions about the credibility and moral standards of the whole US sports regime)

Not in my opinion, just pointing out the usual "holier than thou" US rhetorics, but no biggie in anyway.

Sorry for the sidestep, now please shoot me... :)

[BurtWorm]

4. The reason standards are lower in developing countries

is that multinational corporations demand them to be. Free trade is another name for corporate dictatorship in the Third World.

[monkeyboy]

5. Your homework assignment:

Read "When Corporations Rule the World" cover to cover, then we'll talk. If you're a student, or out of work, contact me via PM and I'll send you a copy via amazon.com (I put my money where my mouth is).

[HereSince1628]

11. I understand the need to generate local and regional economies

to prevent developing nations from functioning like colonies of the "North." But, and I don't know the answer to this, has any western hemispheric country achieved developed status without international trade?

[BurtWorm]

12. Which developed ones are you talking about?

[HereSince1628]

18. Well developed in the western hemisphere would include

Canada, The US (and hey, I'm a zoologist not an economist), so I would think maybe Brazil and Mexico, and depending on your definition possibly Argentina

Again this isn't my area, so I readily admit to an inability to accurately identify a country's developed status but have any of these Developed or (more advanced?) developing countries achieved that status without international trade?

[BurtWorm]

22. The US and Canada are in the group of countries

that dictates (through the IMF and WTO, eg) how fast other ones--like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina--develop. The simple answer to your question is that of course countries need international trade to develop. But then why do so few developing countries actually attain "developed" status? Why is poverty so much more severe and widespread in Latin America than in Anglo America, given that they've had the same time to develop, have similar enough natural riches, and that Latin America has long gone out of its way to make their countries amenable to international corporations?

[HereSince1628]

27. frankly, I am not sure, I'm neither a historian or an economist.

But I suspect that distance and similarity have something to do with it. And there is that old bugaboo history...

N. America is closer to Europe, so trade took less time.

The landscape of N. Am. possible more resembles that of Europe than do the tropics, the Amazon basin or the mountane areas of western S. Am. maybe this eased the transfer of technologies from the wealthier western Europe to the developeing north Am.

Of course there is the issue of history and I admit to being completely ignorant on the history of S. Am.

[BurtWorm]

31. I don't know the answers myself, but I think history is the prime suspect

The fact that Latin America was literally owned by conservative, Catholic Spain and Portugal into the nineteenth century when the officially secular but effectively Protestant US, in particular, was an independent actor on the world--or at least the Atlantic world--stage. The fact that the US, while Latin America was just shaking off its colonial powers, asserted a doctrine of national interest in hemispheric affairs.

But more to the point, recent history: the fact that the IMF and World Bank have been forcing developing countries to "liberalize"--i.e., lower their labor and environmental standards to attract investment from Western multinationals in exchange for loans and more favorable repayment schedules.

[AntiLempa]

30. International Trade is great!

I'm not opposed to International Trade one bit. I love drinking my Fair Trade coffee and fair trade tea. I also get a lot of compliments on the ring and other merchandise I purchase at 10,000 Villages and other Fair Trade stores. I do have a problem with this corporate managed race to the bottom.

The US acheived it's status through protectionism. Lots and lots of it. Now that it is the most powerful country in the word, we are fighting against countries that practice protectionism.

Can you name a country that has practiced Free Trade and became a First World Country?

[Le Taz Hot]

7. I understand what you're saying,

OTOH, as the only remaining superpower don't we have a moral imperative to lead the fight for human rights? Dean's not saying he's going to scrap all treaties and basically blackmail other countries into bettering their who do not meet our workers' rights standards. He acknowledges that these changes must come incrimentally and that he wants to work WITH other countries and offer incentives to reduce and/or eliminate worker exploitation and abuses.

If we have any chance at all to pull this off, it will have to be carefully and diplomatically finessed. The current administration* is incapable of such.

Two additional points about free trade from the Dean camp:
1) Dean advocates PENALIZING those companies who move our jobs offshore and are STILL getting tax benefits. He advocates pulling their tax breaks, subsidies, and all the other sweatheart deals he's made with the best Congress money can buy.
2) Dean advocates tax breaks for small business. Most people are unaware that small businesses make up 80% of the job market in this country. The question is why are we giving the breaks only to the big boys who move American jobs overseas and reap obcene profits in the process?

Most of the other Democrats repeat the same old Democratic mantra regarding jump-starting the economy: "Invest in infrastructure" (a la Roosevelt's WPA programs). It's the same as the Republican mantra of "tax cuts will solve everything."

Dean is taking a completely different tack by saying yes, invest in schools, infrastructure, etc., but make it easier for the American people to start and maintain small, locally owned business that employ people in THIS country. He's saying Americans have great ideas for new businesses all the time -- it's one of our specialties -- why not eliminate the obstacles and let them do what they do best?

[HereSince1628]

10. Re: old democratic mantra...

At the present time investment in the infrastructure is warranted because 1) the infrastructure IS falling apart while local and state governments can't generate revenue to fix it 2) homeland security can be improved by building redundancy into critical infrastructure (redundancy =surplus capacity) something that the private sector can't do because it isn't profitable (but it sure is a good idea to have back-up reserves), 3) the modernization of the infrastructure and generation of redundancy will generate new technologies and jobs and 4) it will make the country more competitive on the other side of this recession.

[Le Taz Hot]

20. My point was not to

disparage infrasructure building/rebuiling, my point was that Dean has added another element -- investment in small businesses that makes up 80% of the job market and that are far less likely to move those jobs overseas.

[HereSince1628]

24. I am in favor or investing in local and regional business, too.

.

[uberotto]

8. I know what you mean...

I mean, I have this "friend" who refuses to buy a particular brand of clothing because the manufacturer hires third world sweat shops to do the work.

Can you believe her arrogance, thinking that she is just way too good to buy clothing made by six year old kids who work 16 hours a day and earn almost nothing. She says that "she only supports manufacturers who meet her standards". She's such a stupid biotch.

I keep trying to explain to her that smokin joe ( lets face it, joe must be smoking something ) tells us that this sort of snobbery, if too many people start acting like this, will take us from the bush recession to the "I'm too good to buy my clothes from a sweatshop" depression.

But on the serious side, the US is the largest customer in the world. If we decide to raise our standards for trade above what the WTO requires, most compainies located in countries such as Mexico and Latin America will do what it takes to meet those standards. Why, because they need us as badly as we need them. If the country doesn't raise it's standards, the company will move it's factory somewhere else. You have to remember, most companies have no National ties. They will go wherever the money is.

And as for the one in five jobs connected to international trade, well, Americans aren't going to stop spending money any time soon. If the higher standards cause us to stop trading with some countries, we will increase our trade with other countries. The small number of exports and the incredible large number of imports coming in and out of the US will not change.

And if it causes prices to increase, as we have seen with gas prices, even if they double people are going to continue buying. They will complain a lot more but they will continue to spend.

[dofus]

9. By your standards

I should buy only from those companies that most exploit the poor of the world, since those people are probably the most grateful to have a job.

[DealsGapRider]

15. I'm looking for an exchange of ideas here...

...not sophomoric taunts. I'm asking for someone to explain this logic to me. I am perfectly willing to have my mind changed on this score.

[Trajan]

26. Honestly ...

this thread appears to have been posted to INVITE taunts and flames ... QED .....

You get what you want here ....

MOST progressives do NOT accept the universal utility of absolute free trade: .... and yet you are presenting this thinking here like it were mainstream liberal policy .... it isnt, and you know it ....

One might question the motive of presenting libertarian notions of absolute free markets in a progressive forum ....

One MIGHT think it is to intentionally stir the pot ..... as it were ......

[chadm]

16. If you really want to understand this issue

read "When Corporations Rule the World" by David C. Korten, who is an MBA and Ph.D. (I believe) and who worked for the UNDP for a good portion of his life. He describes the systemic problems in the WTO. His book was one of the factors that led to the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999.

[0rganism]

17. Your version of free trade demolishes our own manufacturing base

Why even think of building a factory here, when the employees could be unionized and have a minimum wage and demand decent working conditions? And all those pesky environmental regulations -- what a burden! It's so much more convenient to locate in a country where you can force people to work 18-hour shifts at gunpoint for a buck a day, and then import duty-free using GATT or NAFTA.

This attitude is reflected in our own economy by the downsizing of the workforce and the dwindling of the middle class; slowly but surely, we will come to resemble Indonesia and Uganda. There will be a rich owning class calling the shots, an impoverished service class struggling to survive, and not a damn thing in the middle. Maybe then we can have Gap build its maquiladoras dead center in Columbus or Des Moines, instead of Tijuana and Juarez. That's Progress, Lieberman style.

[HereSince1628]

21. yes, one justification for keeping the inheritance( death) tax

"There will be a rich owning class calling the shots, ..."

First, Cromwell, the US, then France, we all fought revolutions to overthrow this system of rule by the capitalized families.

My family participated in 2 of those three rebellions, and frankly I'll repeat their contributions if the necessity arises.

[DealsGapRider]

23. Okay, so let me ask you this...

If you're talking about free trade through the lens of its effect on American workers (which is fine, by the way), then doesn't it undermine the moral dimension that supposedly attends high labor and environmental standards? What I mean is, it sounds like you're using these standards as a disincentive to keep corporations from sending jobs overseas where labor and enviro standards are less expensive. By making it harder for them to do business overseas, you force them to stay here. Now, that's all fine and dandy, but isn't it a little dishonest to then turn around and say that the reason you're pressing for these standards is because of your commitment to human rights and environmental stewardship?

Also, no one has answered my question about the effect on poor people in foreign countries. Sometimes international corporations are the only jobs available to these people. By making it harder for these corporations to do business in developing countries, aren't you making things harder on poor people who desperately want to work?

[0rganism]

28. labor and enviro standards are what we want to create and enhance!

> you're using these standards as a disincentive to keep corporations
> from sending jobs overseas

You aren't getting it. These jobs wouldn't be going overseas in the first place, but for the gutting of tariffs on international trade.

> isn't it a little dishonest to then turn around and say that the
> reason you're pressing for these standards is because of your
> commitment to human rights and environmental stewardship?

Why do you suppose the two to be in contradiction? If the jobs stay here because there are tariffs imposed due to a lack of standards "overseas", the incentive for "overseas" capitalists seeking investment is to meet those standards for human rights and environmental standards. Take away the tariffs, and you take away the incentive for improvement. Instead, you'd make an incentive for our own standards to degenerate to the point where we can get jobs again.

> no one has answered my question about the effect on poor people in foreign countries

If you employ poor people in foreign countries in such a way that they are kept poor by design, you do them no favors. The goal ought to be applied leverage for standards improvement through regulated trade. Instead, GATT and NAFTA are used to demolish our own national labor and environmental standards while draining our labor market.

Read about the effect on poor people in our own country:
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2001/01october/oct01interviewlouie.html

Read about the lawsuit by Ethyl corp against Canada, on the basis of Canada's environmental laws restricting the fuel additive MMT, or Methanex corp's lawsuit against California because of the ban on fuel additive MTBE. The environmental damage these treaties cause is real, real people are getting really hurt by them. Your position, and Lieberman's, are destructively short-sighted.

[DealsGapRider]

32. You make an interesting point...

"If the jobs stay here because there are tariffs imposed due to a lack of standards "overseas", the incentive for "overseas" capitalists seeking investment is to meet those standards for human rights and environmental standards. Take away the tariffs, and you take away the incentive for improvement. Instead, you'd make an incentive for our own standards to degenerate to the point where we can get jobs again."

This is an intriguing point that I had not considered. I would be interested to know how it works practically speaking. For example, how would overseas capitalists in developing countries fund improvements in labor standards and enviro standards? Presumably they would need outside investment. And if the IMF and World Bank are not trustworthy, according to the anti-WTO types, what institutions exist to lend a hand? I'm asking, not trying to be a dick.

[0rganism]

33. Who says they can't "fund" improvements?

These aren't just peasants and kids we're talking about here, but transnational moguls. Until recently, they were able to meet those standards just fine while operating in the USA, but by outsourcing to reduce fixed costs they bumped up their stock prices and reaped obscene profits. If they wanted to "fund improvements", they could certainly have done so. Instead they funded golden parachutes for their CEOs.

Choices.

And you're damn right the IMF isn't trustworthy. The IMF and World Bank are not designed to improve conditions, but rather to consolidate wealth for transnational investors through foreclosure on national assets. Ask an Argentinian if they appreciate what the IMF has done for them.

--
Padded with power here they come
International loan sharks backed by the guns
Of market hungry military profiteers
Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared
With the blood of the poor

Who rob life of its quality
Who render rage a necessity
By turning countries into labour camps
Modern slavers in drag as champions of freedom

Sinister cynical instrument
Who makes the gun into a sacrament --
The only response to the deification
Of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations'
Idolatry of ideology

North South East West
Kill the best and buy the rest
It's just spend a buck to make a buck
You don't really give a flying fuck
About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt

See the paid-off local bottom feeders
Passing themselves off as leaders
Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows
Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy
And they call it democracy

See the loaded eyes of the children too
Trying to make the best of it the way kids do
One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast
To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast
They call the revolution

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get
Always making certain that there's one thing left
Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt
--
"Call it Democracy" by Bruce Cockburn

[DealsGapRider]

34. I'm not talking about corporations funding these improvements...

I'm talking about foreign governments being required to make improvements to their labor and environmental standards that they -- the governments -- cannot afford, which will then cost them the few jobs they have.

I am willing to agree with you that a US corporation should not be allowed to outsource employment to a place where there are no labor standards just to save money at the cost of American jobs. What I'm talking about is, say, an Indonesian company that employs Indonesian villagers making squidgets that has poor labor standards. Let's assume we're not talking about an evil multinational corporation. Should the Indonesian company be prohibited from trading with the US? Do we make these agreements on the company level or the country level?

Look, the bottom line is that I'm concerned that if you set the bar too high for these poor countries, they won't be able to trade with the US, which is desperately needed for their development. Your principal focus seems to be to ensure that US corporations don't get away with going overseas to save money. My principal worry is that poor people in developing countries will be harmed by unreasonably high standards that they can't possibly meet so liberals in this country can feel good about themselves.

I say again, I am perfectly capable of being persuaded. I have not made up my mind on this issue.

[0rganism]

36. "prohibit" and "tariff" are two very different things, wouldn't you say?

If the Indonesian company continues to sell its squidgets at a competitive level after a tariff is applied, so be it. However, if the Indonesian company likes to saturate their squidget product with loose asbestos fibres, then we should damn well be able to keep it out of our country, and not have it forced into the marketplace. If that company can figure out how to make its product meet spec for a duty free import, then it gets a big financial boost, and that's an incentive. It could even be an incentive for an ethical venture capitalist, underwriting bonds to help the companies in "underdeveloped nations" improve their processes.

The current system of deregulation is broken, as it rewards those companies and countries for their lousy laws and corrupt practices.

One reason you want national governments applying import and export laws instead of companies is that governments represent (nominally, at least) the interests of the public, while the companies represent only their shareholders. You can usually vote in a national election if you're a citizen of a country, but unless you're a major shareholder you don't get a say in the corporate decision process.

[aneerkoinos]

40. first forgive the debt

The "need for outside investment" is a bit of a laugh as long as poor countries are debt slaves to IMF and World bank spesifically and OECD countries generally. They pay more in interests than they receive aid, and they are forced to accumulate new debt just to to be able to pay those interests, and accept neoliberal policies on the side which guarantee that people in those countries will stay poor and get poorer.

This is the reason why NGO's have been campaigning for debt relief for years as the first priority. As long as the debt slavery continues, there is not much point in discussing anything else. So first null all IMF and World bank debts and get rid of those institutions for good.

After that there are many interesting ideas for raising global "cohesion-funds", the so called Tobin tax being one example, Soros has also many interesting technical ideas. There has been also talk about UN lottery etc.

One lesson that the IMF and World Bank teaches is that the management of the funds and investments should be not in hands of any single organ, but pluralistic, UN, NGO's, as well as governements and private sector should be involved in different creative ways.

Of course all this is just futile talk without real democracy, empowering people and communities to actually decide for themselves and have real control over absolutely transparent political organs and forums on every level, local, national, areal and global.

Better world is possible!

[HereSince1628]

29. I think fair labor and environmental standards don't affect the outcome

Corporations can and do realize BIG cost savings in labor in these developing countries. Even if they provided US standards of pollution/conservation control, and limited working hours and ages to allow realization of human aspirations they would still have large margins of difference in labor costs.

[TLM]

19. We did it here... just look at our progress.

"My gut response to this idea is that it's terribly arrogant, and lord knows there are few DUers who don't have something to say about US arrogance. Isn't this basically saying, we won't trade with you until you rise to standards that WE deem acceptable? Well, Christ, many nations simply cannot maintain the kind of labor and enviro standards that we feel are essential because they're too poor."


It took us several decades, but look at the progress we made between about 1890 to about 1940 by insisting on higher standards and unionizing.

We really went from a 3rd world style labor situation in this country with horrible conditions, low pay, child labor... really most of the problems we see in these other nations now.

I think the problem is that people look at this and think that we can't fix this instantly, so it can't be done. And like all progress, this takes time.

We'll need to set up a program that phases these other nations into these standards. I would think we'd need some kind of probationary trade status that is contingent on these nations showing they are making improvements and working towards these goals.

And I do not think Dean wants to cut off trade with nations that do not meet these standards, but we should not be allowing American corporations to move factories to places where there are no standards, so they can take advantage of the lack of standards.

[StandWatie]

25. we already do this through the WTO

We just do it in reverse and force them in the other direction (anti-labor, anti-environmental, anti-people).

[MaverickX]

37. I have a different view on trade however ...

I think trade policy should be judged on a nation by nation basis. Trade is too useful as a foreign policy tool to be given to every nation.

[aneerkoinos]

41. I strongly disagree

Im convinced that is actually the heart of the problem. Without commonly agreed international standards, benchmarks and goals (they may and should be flexible and different for countries at different stages of development) nation by nation basis (which btw way is the favourate modus operandi for the current adm.) and cynical use of trade as a tool for foreign policy is no different from the situation that colonialist Europe "enjoyed" until WWII.

Global trade can be democratically regulated only by global organs like UN and WTO. Dogmatic and mistaken as the WTO policies have been, the policies can be changed, especially if US, which despite everything is still the world hegemon, suddenly changes it's policies 180 degrees and starts caring about labor rights and enviroment both domestically and globally.

But your view seems to be that US should do what it has been doing so far, rule the world and protect the "American way of life" using cynical trade policies bilaterally and by controlling IMF and World bank to protect short term nationalistic interests. I find this kind of attitude horrible and I hope I've misinterpreted your stand.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Your gut response is incorrect. Nicaragua is a good example.

Corporate friendly electorate down to the local level. Nicaragua had 25% unemployment before enterprise zones were established. They now enjoy 40% unemployment.

Secondly, there is a very big difference between requiring labor standards and the current practice by multi-nationals to actually BLOCK them in countries such as Columbia where union orgnizers are murdered as they were here in the last century.

Finally, the uprising in Chiapas was about environmental issues with NAFTA.

Frankly, I can think of nothing more arrogant than saying one must spoil the property of developing nations in order to help them achieve any parity.