Why Is Everyone Here Against Free Trade?

[Composed Thinker]

Maybe I've just seen too many Kucinich and Gephardt supporters, but it seems like a lot of people here are against free trade. Why is that? Not everyone benefits from it, but on the whole, it brings great things.

[burythehatchet]

1. You take a shot at identifying the "great things" and I'll be happy to

help you understand

[The Zanti Regent]

170. Tell the people of Ambridge and Aliquippa PA how great Free Trade is

I was born and raised in Ambridge. I had to leave because there are no jobs there anymore.

Once upon a time there were places called American Bridge, HH Robertson, ARMCO and Jones & Laughlin that manufactures steel and provided living wages for thousands of people.

Ronald Reagan came into office and implemented Free Trade which in turn killed the steel industry and threw thousands of Western Pennsylvanians out of work and into lower paying non-union jobs. Many men I knew committed suicide because they could no longer provide for their wives and children.

Walk down the streets of any Western Pennsylvania mill town and see how dead they are. See how there are NO middle aged people there anymore. When a kid turns 18, they're gone forever...

[Maple]

2. Because they believe in

globalization when it works for them...and self-interest when it doesn't.

Or...business as usual..screw the other guy.

[Classical_Liberal]

193. Are you talking about the pharmacutical industry or Microsoft?

?

[laura888]

3. yup - I'd like to hear what those "great things" are...

...besides the wall street numbers...(read: corporations getting rich).

How exactly does it help America?

[Maple]

7. Your job for starters

$2B a day over the border.

Try living without that.

[laura888]

9. my job? please explain - not sure what you're saying...n/t

n/t

[Maple]

11. Yeah you are

Lose that much per day, and see where your job ends up.

In the dumper.

The US needs trade. You are not self sufficient.

No country is.

And your job depends on it.

[laura888]

17. no - please explain how corporations reaping...

...huge profits because they're building their business on the backs of low-wage, non-union workers in Sri Lanka is helping me keep my job?

How do you know that my job is not the one that has been outsourced to Sri Lanka? How do you know that I'm not a ex-textile worker who used to make $8.00/hour with benefits, and is now working part-time at Walmart for minimum wage with no benefits?

How does this free-trade thing help me if I am this person?

Please explain this to me like I'm a 6-year-old.

[Maple]

22. Forget the ideology

and crap about corporations. Every business does what is best for the company...and cheaper wages are best for the company.

And you are confusing NAFTA...which is solely North America...with world trade which is an entirely different ballgame.

2 entirely different markets.

You want other countries to buy your products? Then you buy what they do best.

They can undercut you on labor.

Do something different.

Do what they can't.

It's the only advantage poor countries have...cheap labor. So of course they will use it. Beats starving.

You have tons of advantages. Don't complain because you don't have 110% of them.

Find a job in a different field. Poor people in other countries don't have that choice.

[Classical_Liberal]

194. The computer progammers were doing what they couldn't

Then India learned to do it too, and now they are training the replacement workers in India before being laid off. Welcome to the real world! Now what?

[KittyWampus]

30. The Issue Is Job Creation At Home-NOT OUTSOURCING!!!

The issue is whether the United States will move foward and create new technologies and jobs and economic growth while certain jobs are moved oversees.

For instance, inventing Green technology and then manufacturing, selling, installing & maintaining it would create an almost limitless amount of jobs here in the US> so it wouldn't matter if jobs working technical support go to India.

Further, since the Indians will have more jobs doing technical support, they will have a stronger middle class capable of buying US products.


So the issue is CREATING NEW TECHNOLOGIES & JOBS AT HOME... and training Americans for the newer technolgies.

It is NOT having jobs move oversees.

[Maple]

36. The issue here is actually free trade

If you want more jobs at home, create them.

Only you won't do it with the same old jobs others can do cheaper.

It's called competition

Something the US raves about all around the world

Until of course...it actually faces some.

[RapidCreek]

56. Do tell Maple....

What jobs can be created here, that can't be created cheaper in India....Hamburger factories?

Only ones I can think of are washing the CEO of Haliburtons car, mowing his lawn, cleaning his toilets or carrying his golf bag when the carts ain't got no juice....and that's only cause he probably doesn't wanna live among a bunch of sweaty, lowly brown skinned people, who's breath smells of curry or taco sauce.

RC

[Maple]

65. You see yourself as that dumb??

Is that the best you can think of to do???

Were you planning on doing all these same things for the next thousand years with no change at all???

Gosh...all those Nobel winners you have...all those technological advances you keep telling us you're making....all that entreprenurial spirit you Americans have....and you can't think of anything else to do other than cleaning toilets??

PS...I like curry. Use a mouthwash if it worries you.

[RapidCreek]

83. You didn't answer the question hotshot.....

gee and here all this time I thought you were a clever boy. You made allot of big noises....now back them up. It isn't my job to do your thinking for you. Maybe your could oursource that task to India....I'm sure someone would do a high quality job for you for pennys on the dollar!

P.S. I like curry too....last time I heard, the Corporate fuck stains that think East Indians are good enough to pimp our jobs out to...don't think India is good enough to live in and pay taxes to. I mean, it couldn't be that the high quality of life the assholes are creating over there, isn't high quality enough for them, could it?...so it's gotta be something like curry breath, right?

[Maple]

85. I said it was up to you

You need a roadmap too??

As well as mouthwash?

Think for yourself.

PS...I'm female.

[RapidCreek]

111. Ah so you make much noise

but that is about it, eh?

Let's assume I own a plastics company which does rotational moulding. Let's also assume, I plan to keep that company right here in the good ole US of A. Why would I do such a thing when I have Indian gas flame outfits trying to get me to pimp my production jobs out? You see, it's clear to me that if I farm my jobs out to India...the folks around here won't have the money to buy my product....niether will the folks in India if my rational for moving the jobs there was to pay penny's on the dollar for production costs.

RC

P.S I said I assumed your were a clever boy. I assumed incorrectly....from this point forward, I shall assume you are a female who talks big, while attempting to hide an inability to substantiate that talk with arrogant bravado. :hi:

[laura888]

38. That's fine - but what is the rate of creation of new technologies...

...in the U.S. vs. the rate of jobs of current technologies being outsourced?

What do you say to the thousands (millions) of U.S. workers who used to work in manufacturing who want to feed their kids NOW?

[Maple]

43. Kind of up to you isn't it?

Goodness knows there are tons of new technologies.

Knowledge is doubling every 12 months now.

You can't think of anything new to do??

What do I say to those workers?...the same thing YOU said to all the other workers YOU displaced...find another job.

[Vikingking66]

44. that's the key

During the Clinton years, we saw how new technology could overcome the job loss, keeping things on an even keel for both sides.

The problem is making sure that happens on a regular basis. Eventually, the third world nations will undercut us in the new field, so we need a second new field when that happens. (I.E- when Indian techies take Silicon Valley jobs, where do the American techies go?)

[Maple]

49. Exactly

and there are tons of new technologies...gawd computers are old hat and have been for years and years now.

[Vikingking66]

99. yeah, but they're not doing enough

If they were, we'd be gaining jobs, not losing them.

[laura888]

55. no - what about the low-wage workers who have been displaced?

...can we really say to them - "um... while you're working 3 minimum wage jobs to support your family, find the thousands of $ and the time to go to school and learn a new technology."

It's unrealistic to think that technology and new ideas are the answer.

[Maple]

61. What about em?

They exist everywhere...not just the US.

What did you do with all your blacksmiths when cars came in?

Tech and new ideas are the ONLY answer.

Altho I suppose some blacksmiths sulked...and starved ..cursing cars and hoping they were a passing fad.

[RapidCreek]

71. Blacksmiths went to work at the car factories...

if you'd really like to know. Your question should be...what did you do with your blacksmiths when a company which enjoys the protections of being "American", while paying no taxes, invented cars, then decided to build them in India?

RC

[Maple]

74. No...many of them started garages

Some of them clerked. Some of them went into completely different fields and businesses. What they didn't do was whine...even tho there was no social safety net of any kind back then.

Go thou and do likewise.

[RapidCreek]

112. Gosh thanks for clearing that up for me!

You'd think, with me having lived half of my life in Chicago and Detroit and having had two Great Grandfathers who were Blacksmiths, I'd be as well informed as you are on the subject!

RC

[jmowreader]

114. They became auto mechanics, of course

Which may explain why the guy who fixes the company van has an anvil in his office.

The problem with relying on tech and new ideas to save America is that as soon as they figure out a new technology, the Koreans start manufacturing it and the Indians provide the tech support for it. Today I was selling lumber and noticed some new refrigerators we got in. Made in Korea. A refrigerator is a shitty choice of product to make overseas--you can't get very many in a SeaLand container, and they're not very expensive so the shipping economics don't work. But they're made in the Pacific Rim because labor costs are low and ecological standards are even lower.

The solution is to make sure the tech and new ideas you invent don't make economic sense to produce somewhere else.

[Classical_Liberal]

195. How often do things like the internet revolution come along

? Now computer programmer jobs are going overseas. These aren't highschool dropout workers.

[kayell]

25. So that's why we have full employment

and the economy is humming along at such a nice clip. Wow.

[Maple]

27. Your unemployment problem

comes from fighting foreign wars on borrowed money.

Not trade.

[Trajan]

174. We 'NEED' trade ......

"Fair Trade" is trade as well ...... the opposing position to FREE trade is FAIR trade ...... not a complete absense of all trade ....

There is no such thing as perfectly 'free' trade .... never has been .... never will be ....

Fair traders expect a benefit for the greatest number in society, whereas free traders apparently expect a benefit for those who can manipulate the marketplace to there own advantage, no matter the consequences for society as a whole .....

WHY should ALL of the society of men sign into a social contract that only benefits those who would mold the markets to their UNFAIR advantage and leave others out ? .....

[Julien Sorel]

46. Take a look at the labels on your clothes, or the label

on your shoes, and see where they were made. Look in your driveway. If your car wasn't made in a foreign country, lots of parts in it likely were, and the gas in it almost certainly was pumped outside the U.S. I'm typing this on a keyboard made in Canada, looking at it on a monitor made in Japan, while the mouse I use to control the cursor was made in Mexico. The memory in this computer was made in Taiwan, as were the motherboard and video card. One of the banks I use is Dutch; my insurer is French. I earn my salary from a company that gets about 10% of its revenues from outside the country; that figure is probably low compared to most major companies.

Take away free trade, and all that goes away. My clothes would become more expensive and probably more poorly made. I might lose my job as a result of the loss of foreign revenues. If we slap tariffs on other countries, I guarantee you they will retaliate. Want to pay $10 a gallon for gas? More? We currently import some things that simply cannot be produced domestically -- bauxite, for example. Without it we can't make aluminum. Back to tin -- bad for the environment. Gas prices high? Nuclear power! Coal power! There's the answer. More expensive and more harmful to the environment.

It's easy for people to sit behind their monitors (which were probably made in another country, and were certainly made with parts produced in another country), and attack free trade as part of some world-wide corporatist conspiracy, but then they turn their computer off, go out and get into their car which, if it wasn't made in a foreign country itself, was made better (safer, more economical) as a result of foreign competition, is powered with gas pumped from Venezuela, driven on roads that were built with the help of cheap Mexican labor, while they bitch with a friend about the sad state of the country using their Finnish cell phone. What a rotten deal we have.

[cprise]

116. Baloney

The best examples of foreign competition are from companies that are established abroad, using labor in their own country. You car and computer examples actually argue against free-trade: They were produced by economies that wouldn't exist without a leg-up from concerted industry-building by foreign (Asian) governments and even protectionism.

Just IMAGINE what cars would be like today if Ford and GM set up shop in Japan and USED CHEAP JAPANESE LABOR to get super-rich and prevent both Japanese companies and American workers from prospering.

THIS ISN'T COMPETITION! It's a class war!!!

[Julien Sorel]

120. Your post is utterly nonsensical.

If you have a clean point you want to make, you're going to have to repost using clearer communication. About the only thing that makes sense in this mess is the statement that foreign industry built itself up under protectionsit policies, which is true in some cases, but totally irrelevant to what is happening now, and doesn't address what would happen in this country were we to adopt protectionism.

Your last sentence is particularly meaningless, as it is just a howl, jammed into your post with no logic or evidence behind it. Please, do post again, but know what it is you are trying to say first.

[cprise]

139. Let me clarify

Just IMAGINE what cars would be like today if Ford and GM set up shop in Japan in the 1950s and USED CHEAP JAPANESE LABOR to get super-rich and prevent both Japanese companies and American workers from prospering.

This is about protecting affluent western industrialists. No foreign competition, no government regulation.

[Julien Sorel]

But they didn't.

Are you trying to argue that protectionism is actually pro-competitive? I think I've seen it all now.

[cprise]

148. Sure, just look at all the Japanese car companies :-)

They compete with each other. They don't need protections now, and compete with the rest of the world.

I see you're shocked.

Good.

[Julien Sorel]

155. You're back to making no sense.

The U.S. is the richest nation in the world. But it needs protectionism to get back on its feet, the way the Japanese did after WWII? Of course, the Japanese wouldn't have got where they are without access to open markets in the rest of the world -- but we'll leave that be for now. The essentials of your argument are absurd. The world has changed since the 1950s and 1960s -- a lot. If we instituted protectionism, it would be catastrophic for this county. Japan and Asia were devloping nations; we are the most developed nation in the world. We depend on free trade.

[cprise]

165. I never said we needed more protectionism

You put those words in my mouth.

This is about global trade, and how protectionism is necessary for everyone at some point in time.

The more foreign governments take an interest in raising their own standard of living through industry, the more demand there will be for our products later on. And they will be forced to lower trade barriers on certain products if they want a piece of the global action. But not until they're ready.

[Julien Sorel]

167. Then you aren't saying anything at all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

121. Yeah, funny thing

The greatest economic success stories, the East Asian countries, all grew to have the highest living standards in the non-Western world by protecting their own industries, funding education and infrastructure, and insisting that foreign companies transfer technology to them.

[Julien Sorel]

130. Sorry, you're wrong.

The greatest economic success stories are the United States and the countries of Europe, along with Japan, which prospered in part because they adopted more open trade policies than the rest of the world did. Free trade creates wealth; protectionism retards the creation of wealth. It's a historical fact, as well as being in line with economic theory.

Of course, neither you nor the other person discusses what would happen in this country should we decide to go down the road of protectionism.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

135. Will you "free" trade types

please get it through your ideologically-blinded heads that we're not advocating an end to trade?

I'm all for alliances among nations of similar economic status. No problem with free trade with Canada or the EU. No problem with the new incarnation of ASEAN. No problem with MERCOSUR.

However, free trade with Mexico is problematic because of the great disparities in living standards and legal systems. A free trade zone composed of Mexico and the Central American countries would be fine, though.

Economies throughout the world would be healthier if they produced as many of their necessities domestically as possible and used trade mostly for things that were unavailable in their own countries.

[Julien Sorel]

152. The other person claimed free trade was

actually class war; now you want to make protectionism class war: only wealthy nations should trade with each other. Poor nations need not apply -- at least not on any terms that will allow them to compete. It's absurd.

[cprise]

160. It gives trade priority to their economic neighbors

South America is doing it and I don't think its absurd. They've recognized class war for what it is, and are extricating themselves from our banking system... to the point of encouraging bartering just to avoid the dollar. They want the opportunity to nurture their own entrepeneurs, the same way we did in the 1800s.

The Argentina experience was quite a lesson in western finance.

OTOH, they are far from cut off from us. Their emerging industrialists will begin to compete directly with ours. Then if we do lose jobs, those jobs won't be converted into profitable human-rights violations.

[arcos]

186. All Central American countries have free trade agreements with Mexico...

and the experience has not been positive in most sectors of the economy (for the Central American countries... Mexico's big companies have made HUGE profits).

Why do you think a free trade zone of Mexico and Central America is fine??

[Classical_Liberal]

196. That's a lie the East Asian economies ARE protectionist

and have been since WWII. Prove otherwise.

[ScreamingMeemie]

124. Too bad my husband, a skilled tradesman, will be unemployed

and not able to buy all those less expensive, better made items. Free trade means my family suffers, free trade means our future suffers. Free trade with unions outside of the country is a start towards making free trade a viable endeavor. Don't "buy" into the rhetoric. It's going to kill the workforce.

[Julien Sorel]

141. I'm a trained economist.

I suppose that would make me responsible for 'the rhetoric.' I suppose it also makes me part of the corporatist conspiracy.

[ScreamingMeemie]

144. I'm a trained mother, I know what I live day to day.

Sorry.

[Julien Sorel]

156. So am I.

[ScreamingMeemie]

158. I am glad you are sorry that free trade in the way our

government has framed it has caused my family to suffer immensely. Allowed to continue, I won't have an American Dream to hang onto anymore.

[Julien Sorel]

171. You are assuming protectionism would improve your life,

in the absence of any evidence that that is the case. And maybe it would improve your life, but damage the lives of many other people in this country. Would that make protectionism good, or right?

[Classical_Liberal]

198. Korea, Japan and China

all protectionist.

[cprise]

147. Call it a 'tendency'

...or anything else you want.

The politicians being paid by major corporations are the ones with complete privatization on their lips!

If you're in denial about the extreme ideological agenda being pushed with corporate money in Washington, then that does not reflect well on that ex-corporate-lobbyist you support for President.

[Julien Sorel]

153. When you have no arguments, just accuse the other person of being

'in denial.'

I suppose that's your way of saying you have nothing constructive left to say.

[cprise]

157. More constructive than labeling us conspiracy theorists

I thought pointing out the rather gross effects of corporate power against democracy was a great way to bring the point across.

For some, I realize, it's not much of an issue.

[mhr]

4. Because Free Trade as Practiced Today

Benefits Corporations at the expense of people.

As a start consider an earlier post from today.
------
Hi All,

Stephen Roach explains a puzzling economic question in his latest report
linked below.

How has the US economy shown productivity growth while creating so few
jobs?

As Roach explains in his Morgan Stanley report, outsourced American jobs
make remaining American workers look more productive because the
outsourced overseas labor is not counted as a labor input into American
corporations.

Per Roach, the US economy would have created millions of new jobs by
this point in a typical recovery. However, by utilizing overseas labor,
corporations save money and look profitable while preventing domestic
job creation and stifling economic recovery with lost domestic wages.

In essence, the corporations have the best of both worlds, increased
profits and growth while American workers are idled, bereft of income.

For those that have forgotten, Bush supports the loss of good American
jobs overseas.

Enjoy
------
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20031017-fri.html#anchor0

Global: Imported Productivity

Stephen Roach (New York)

America’s fabled productivity miracle continues to be a key underpinning
for much that is special about the US economy. With productivity in the
nonfarm business sector up an astonishing 6.8% sequentially (annual
rate) in 2Q03 and 4.1% on a year-over-year basis, it’s hard to deny that
something quite extraordinary is going on. As I see it, what’s special
is an increasingly powerful global labor arbitrage between domestic and
foreign labor input that has given rise to a surge in offshore
outsourcing. The result is a jobless recovery built on an increasingly
tenuous foundation of “imported productivity.” The real issue is whether
this new strain of productivity enhancement is sustainable. I have my
doubts.

On the surface, there’s no denying the unique character of this
productivity-led recovery. In the first six quarters after the US
economy officially bottomed in 4Q01, nonfarm business productivity has
recorded a 6.7% cumulative increase. That’s the fastest six-quarter
post-recession rebound since that which occurred after the recession
ending in 4Q70. Equally impressive, however, is the extraordinary
shortfall in job creation that has occurred since the end of the last
recession in November 2001. Private nonfarm payrolls have contracted
about 1% (or 1.1 million workers) in the ensuing 22 months since that
cyclical trough. That stands in sharp contrast to gains of about 5%
recorded, on average, over comparable periods of the preceding six
business cycle upturns. In fact, had the current cycle conformed to the
prior-cycle norm, today’s job count would be fully 4.3 million workers
higher.

This same cyclical comparison allows us to calculate some hypothetical
productivity scenarios on the basis of alternative employment paths for
the US economy. If, for example, private nonfarm payrolls had traced the
path suggested by the earlier six-cycle norm, our calculations suggest
that productivity would have risen only 2.0% over the six quarters
ending 2Q03 -- less than one-third the pace actually recorded.
Alternatively, if hiring had closed only half the gap between the
current cycle and the six-quarter norm, our calculations would place the
productivity increase at 4.3% over the six quarters ending 2Q03 --
slightly more than one-third slower than published figures currently
indicate.

[quaker bill]

5. Depends on what you mean by it.

As practiced currently, I am against it.

Were it practiced in a truly just way (which would be more regulated than free) then perhaps I would become a supporter.

[amlouden]

8. ethics

adam smith believed that corporations weren't ethical and only there to make money, which is more or less true untill the government steps in

[Vikingking66]

51. interestingly,

Smith wasn't a complete free marketer. He believed that the government had to ensure that workers were paid enough to prosper on, so that employers didn't cut wages to the point where the quality of work and the numbers of future laborers was damaged. He also called for public education, so that workers wouldn't become braindead and could be more productive.

This, you never read about in Econ 101. They hide this side of Smith, because it damagest their perfect little world.

[quaker bill]

106. Right

It is economics 101. The regulatory function of government is required to ameloriate the natural excesses of capitalism.

Also right in that Freidman, avowed proponent of deregulation, low taxes, and the supply side, does not mention this about Adam Smith.

It is part of the religion of the supply side myth. The whole notion that the freer the market, the better it serves the public interest BS.

Some things just need to be done, profitable or not.

[ShaneGR]

6. OMG, composed thinker is back. Composed, what 'great things'????

[Maple]

10. Apparently none of you are aware

Clinton and the others signed labor and environment side agreements to NAFTA in 1994.

But then why should you know that...you've already confused the WTO with NAFTA, and both of them with other deals with other countries.

Face it...none of you know what it's about...you just want to complain.

Everyone in the world has lost jobs to the southern US in recent years folks....no unions, no taxes, special deals.

Didn't hear you complaining then.

Different when it hits you tho eh?

No sympathy now. Sorry.

[alcuno]

48. "Everyone in the world has lost jobs to the southern US?"

Unemployment in South Carolina is 7.5%. Where is it that you think those jobs went? Florida?

[kayell]

72. yup, and that's in the areas that are doing ok

Try Marlboro county, SC at 21.3% unemployment in July.

The states economy is just booming from all the great jobs that have been shipped down here, yessiree. We're all just real pleased here with the mills just booming along. /unbearably heavy sarcasm

[Maple]

76. The southern US is only

S Carolina??

And figures only matter in the last couple of years??

[alcuno]

96. Louisiana - 7.2%, Mississippi - 6.3%, Texas - 6.6%, North

Carolina - 6.5%. No, the southern US is not only S. Carolina. You said jobs "worldwide" were going to the southern US. Where's your evidence?

[RapidCreek]

118. Again you make allot of noise

but you provide no facts to back it up! I suppose if you'd care to go back to the days of slavery you might have a point. Europeans liked to buy Southern US cotton because it was cheap. Why was it cheap? Because it was picked by slaves. People who were forced to work 16 hours a day from the age of 6 or so, for sustenance. If they whined, they were whipped, shot, hung or raped. Hell they might get that treatment even if they didn't whine. I just have to ask...were those slave owners clever business men?


RC

[tinnypriv]

12. Cos it ain't "free"?

Maybe you missed the steel tariffs.

And EU farm subsidies.

Free Trade is a fucking hypocritical joke.

Serious free trade requires free movement of capital and labour. Nowadays capital is mobile, labour is immobile. Hence, the whole thing is mostly bullshit.

[Maple]

14. It 's free in what it covers

open it up to everything.

It ain't Canada and Mexico stopping it ya know.

And NAFTA has nothing to do with the EU.

Your understanding of any of it is the fucking hypocritical joke.

[tinnypriv]

54. LOL

If you say so.

I can see this is going to be a waste of time, so you just carry right on.

[Maple]

59. Oh! You don't get to rant

and complain without facts intervening?

Tsk.

[RapidCreek]

125. Thus far you have supplied no facts

just allot of bravado! You talk quite a bit of the WTO. The WTO is a load of shit. It takes power away from citizens and national governments and hands it to a global authority run by a bunchunelected bureaucrats, most of whome have their hand in the pocket of one industry or another. To make matters worse they control 85 to 90 percent of ALL trade. I don't give a shit if Clinton helped push it through....so the hell what? He also got his cock sucked in the White House and didn't have the sense to tell the Grand Jury, where he puts his skippy, is no ones business but his own.

You want to talk about the WTO? Talk away! Share with me your vast knowledge and experience.

[coralrf]

75. Maple...

Your anti-American rant is pathetic. These folks are quite clear on NAFTA, Globalization their similarities and their differences. It is you that sees them in error. They are trade agreements and trade concepts, not fodder for Canadian anti-Americanism.

May I suggest that the Canadians on this board try looking out for Canada and let us Yanks take care of the USA. I am sure Canada is not perfect and it could benefit from your compassion and soft touch.

Or you could just fuck off. That might work.

[Maple]

81. Pay attention please

It isn't any anti americanism...I work in finance and trade, and it ticks me off when people who haven't clue one about it, rant...because, boo hoo, suddenly it affects them.

May I suggest you start dealing with the new realities of the world?

We are all interdependent...and borders don't matter anymore.

And a big SMOOOOCH to you too.

[cprise]

123. "borders don't matter anymore"

A common refrain of Libertarians and a way for rich countries to trivialize government. Or another way of saying that only money matters.

Strong, responsive governments are such an inconvenience, esp. when they're just sitting on a pile of resources that can make western corporations rich. All for what-- some silly enviromental and labor laws.

The new realities of the world are that free-trade ideology was just trounced in Cancun, and that government and democracy really does matter.

[laura888]

126. absolutely!

think back to prior to all of our labor laws - does anyone in the U.S. really want to go back to the days of child labor, no corporate taxes, 80-hour work weeks and the like?

Doing away with government regulation means that these things will come back.

We cannot count on corporations to regulate themselves.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

129. "I work in finance and trade"

which is another way of saying, "'Free' trade has been a tremendously good deal for people like me."

[RapidCreek]

132. Maple or sour grapes?

your just pissed cause you can't get away with dumping your subsidized soft woods down here anymore. Funny how you believe in free market economics till it bites you in the ass, ain't it?

RC

[arcos]

187. I would agree with you...

if not for your xenophobic comments. I agree with you in principle, free trade is not a good idea.

But this comment "May I suggest that the Canadians on this board try looking out for Canada and let us Yanks take care of the USA."

:wtf:

[Abe Linkman]

13. Do you support FAIR trade?

n/t

[Maple]

15. Clinton thot it was fair trade

What you want is called 'protecionism'

As in...protect YOUR ass. Screw everyone else.

[Darranar]

16. Because "Free Trade" is only free...

for the rich corporations when they start making workers work long hours for little pay around the world? And when the governments that support them refuse to cut subsidies for farmers and basically follow a "screw them, bless the rich" doctrine?

[Maple]

26. Forget the ideology

free trade means no tariffs.

And you also confuse world trade with NAFTA.

Please...before arguing this stuff...find out what you're talking about.

[Darranar]

69. When did I mention NAFTA?

and with no tariffs, a move I support, comes environmental and labor regulations. Until that is recognized, "free" trade will be simply exploitation.

[Maple]

84. You lump all trade

in together...and it is all quite different.

There are by the way...labor and environmental regs in NAFTA.

Trade is trade..used since day one in the world.

Quite different than slavery or exploitation.

Give the ideology a rest.

[Darranar]

93. Very little environmental regulation or labor regulation...

in NAFTA. And saying that there is any considerable regulation is junk.

[Classical_Liberal]

199. Chapter 11, what the hell was that?

Why is it being used to undermine enviromental and labor regulations, her in the US and Canada? I don't think you are very representative of most Canadians.

[RapidCreek]

134. Free trade means no Stumpage subsidies

Have a nice day!

RC

[juajen]

18. So far, have not seen any good things; however

I certainly see a tremendous amount of jobs rushing out of the country and a tremendous amount of very rich CEO's and other corporate goodfellows.

Oh, maybe you mean all the cheap goods with the "Made in China" label.

Unfortunately, Ross Perrot was right. NAFTA and the WTO are killing us. Eventually there will be no middle class to buy all of these goods; just more people living in poverty and more homeless, helpless victims of these horrifically injurious policies. Even safeguards will not put these into the realm of "good for us" policies.

I grew up in the 50's and 60's when "Made in the USA" was a proud label and exports were many and imports few. We now live in an era where boxes that say "Made in China" have to be marked out and replaced with our name so that uninformed people will not realize just how far down the hill we are.

I support Dennis Kucinich because of NAFTA and the WTO. I wish more people did.

GO DENNIS GO!!!!!

[laura888]

20. Amen! Go Dennis!

This is one of the most important issues today!!!

[Maple]

29. NAFTA and the WTO

are the only thing keeping you afloat right now.

And there is nothing Made in the USA anymore.

It's all a joint effort.

You just want to hog it all.

Dennis will go alright....right out the window

[Vikingking66]

57. so what does the USA make then?

Here's the problem: the US buying third world jobs works just fine for the Third World jobs, but the stuff they're supposed to buy from U.S is going over to the Third World too. Jeans, Coca-Cola, TV's- all of it is cheaper when made overseas.

How many white collar jobs can we make?
Could they ever be enough to sustain an entire country?

[Maple]

62. Up to you

Gawd knows you have enough technical advances to keep you going for a couple of hundred years.

Make use of them

Let someone else make running shoes and jeans.

[Vikingking66]

102. but that's the problem

We don't have enough technical advances that create INDUSTRIES.
Computers worked for the 80s and 90's, but we're going to lose
those jobs to India, so we need to figure out what's next and
fast.

Optimism alone won't do it.

[InkAddict]

168. Use those fancy new technologies to make

lots and lots and lots of "fake" money in pretty go-in-the-radiation colors that thieves will have a harder time passing so we'll all be sure to have the REAL THING, baby. I hear the presses rollin as we speak! Meanwhile the digital money keeps the CEOs in style

http://costofwar.com/

Oh-oh, I think they're on to it! Who leaked the plan?

New community bathhouses might be worth constructing. Listening up masons across America? - are you gray, are you sick, do you have gold in your dental work from better days...walk right in - the dressing rooms are right down the hall and to your left--Class War and Genocide coming soon to a town near you.

Better find out if Maple is investing in casket-making companies, side-by-side crematoriums that have a faster burn rate courtesy of new technology, and bone up on the EPA environmental standards for air purity filtering, cause it's gonna smell worse than VX hydrolysate, and oh yeah, cryo if you've still got a little portfolio and good Levi(S)genes - but when we all wake up,it won't be pretty!

[Vikingking66]

189. dude, tone it down

The issue of job creation is a serious one that needs to be discussed without resorting to broad polemics. Keep in mind - the U.S is not doing horribly badly in a historical sense. We bounced back from the Great Depression and created prosperity in the 50's and 60's by massively investing in real estate construction, the federal highway system, and aerospace technology. We bounced back from the 91' recession when the internet hit it big. The question is making sure that those "big ticket" industries come along at a fast enough clip.

[juajen]

178. Actually, there are things Made in the USA

They're called WEAPONS, some of mass destruction and SOLDIERS, also WMD's also FOOD, though GM food, not wanted by everyone. Still, we help to feed the world. Your anti-American attitude is understandable. We are cocky, selfish and greedy. Though, please understand, that plenty on this board want new technologies, those that deal in new energy sources to lessen our hoggish dependence on Middle Eastern oil, new production of better anti-pollution and pro-environment technologies.

Unfortunately, we have been hijacked by neocons and this has been going on for at least 20 years. If we lose the next election or it is stolen, we are lost. I would like to think that if this was happening in Canada, we would sympathize and know that we have many Canadian friends and we would not paint them all with the same brush, as you are doing to us.

[kayell]

40. One of the many reasons I support Kucinich

"The global trade regime of NAFTA and WTO has enriched multinational corporations. But for workers, family farmers, and the environment, it has meant a global race to the bottom. Companies leave the U.S. in search of low wages, low commodity prices, anti-union climates, and lax environmental laws. NAFTA has been used to whipsaw workers at the negotiation table, forcing wages and benefit concessions under threat of moving jobs overseas. Trade treaties must be conditioned on workers’ rights, human rights, and environmental principles.

Among the first actions of a Kucinich Administration will be withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO—to be replaced by fair trade agreements."

http://kucinich.us/issues/issue_10key.htm

[Maple]

45. Kucinich is clueless

and will never be elected.

Most of the electorate is smarter than that economically.

[Bertrand]

19. Im for free trade

but what is going on in the world today isnt a movement towards it, but cronyism between the powerful countries to manipulate the global economic framework for their profit.

[Maple]

31. That's why 146 countries

most of them poor, are in it??

[DoNotRefill]

21. Free trade ain't free...

when other countries put up stumbling blocks for us to sell in their markets, while selling their stuff here at below cost to increase market share and drive their american competitors out of business...

[Maple]

32. Free trade means no tariffs

and if you don't like the rules...well you're the one making them for your country.

No one is forcing you into any trade deals.

[DoNotRefill]

115. Want to see foreign countrys bellow like branded calfs?

implement exactly their trade laws for our dealing with them.

[Tinoire]

23. Because of things like this

MELTDOWN IN BOLIVIA

10/17/03 Tens of Thousands March in Bolivia as Crisis Deepens

10/17/03 Bolivian president formally resigns

10/17/03 Bolivian cabinet resigns

10/17/03 Bolivia vice-president takes power after president resigns following protests

10/17/03 Why is the U.S. threatening Bolivia?

10/17/03 Bolivia: Oil And Gas Fields Seized

10/17/03 Bolivian army fights to keep protesters at bay The month long revolt against his U.S.-backed policies have left at least 53 people dead, not including the miners, whose deaths have not been confirmed by authorities. The government in South America's poorest nation, where six out of 10 people live on less than $2 a day, is under attack for a host of grievances ranging from its U.S.-led eradication of coca to a plan to export natural gas to the United States.

10/17/03 Hercules plane airlifts Israelis from Bolivia ((Excellent article about what's taking place))

Analysis: History repeats itself. Another US puppet regime has oppressed its people past the breaking point. What happened in Cuba and in Iran is happening now in Bolivia. And, with Bolivia's oil and gas effectively out of reach to the US, and the CIA still unable to topple Hugo Chavez and bring Venezuela's into US control, the US now finds itself even more dependent on Middle East oil, far beyond what it is able to take out of Iraq.


and this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=169911">Bolivia on 'Brink of Catastrophe

From Bolivia:

"Globalization is just another name for submission and domination," Nicanor Apaza, 46, an unemployed miner. "We've had to live with that here for 500 years, and now we want to be our own masters."

[Maple]

33. Sorry...wrong topic

Find the thread on American imperialism

This one is about world trade.

[kayell]

42. Change that to corporate imperialism

and NAFTA and the WTO are the same thing.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[laura888]

70. "Globalization is just another name for submission and domination"

What's happeing in Bolivia is ENTIRELY relevant to what we're discussing here.

[Maple]

88. The UN is globalization

Kyoto is globalization

Satellite weather reports are globalization

US imperialism and gunboat diplomacy...is a whole other topic folks.

Don't blame one for the other.

[Tinoire]

79. Maple- that explains why you're missing the whole point

You think if you can carve up every little item and justify it somehow, you can justify the entire package. Well you can't. World Trade and American Imperialism go hand in hand.

All those cute little acronyms are tools for American Imperialism.


All these trees, how can you not see the forest?

[Darranar]

82. Agreed!

And by the way, before someone says that I don't even know what the abbreviations mean, or something of that nature:

NAFTA: North American Free Trade Agreement

WTO: World Trade Organization

I'm not so ignorant and stupid as you suspect, Maple. I know very well what both are, what both were propagandized as, and what both cause.

[Maple]

90. You are more than a little Americacentric!

There are 6 billion other humans out here you know.

You are only one dot on a very big map.

YOU look after your somewhat overly ambitious rulers...but don't blame world trade and the rest of us for your home made problems.

[Darranar]

97. She's blaming the US...

and she's right, unfortunately for you.

The US is the most powerful country in the world militarily, economically, and politically.

[Tinoire]

119. And it is precisely for those other 6 billion humans out there

that I am against Free Trade!

The rest of the world does NOT owe us a living! The people of the world, us, the little people are sick and tired of the Free Trade rich people keep telling us is going to make this world a better place!

When the hell did a bunch of rich people or a bunch of rich nations ever do anything to benefit the poor? You can not push that kind of crap here and expect people to buy it!

I don't know who you work for or what you do but I seem to recall that you once posted that your job depends on Free Trade. News alert- I don't care about your job, or about Billy Bunter being able to buy his shirts for a cheaper price (Billy's post above) but I do care about the 6 billion other humans that Anglo-Saxon derived people think should slave and toil away for their "way of life". When Billy Bunter sees a shirt for $14, I see an Equadoran woman sewing that shirt for pennies under a dim-lit bulb and crooked middle-man pocketing a grand total of $13.40. When I think of your job or anyone else's which relies on this, I see the Bolivian masses rising up and saying "NO- you go toil in your own fields and feed your damn selves and leave us the hell alone".

And to them I say Viva la Revolucion!

We are against NAFTA. Against GATT. Against the WTO. And not only because they

1. exploit the rest of the world for the enrichment of a few middle-man
2. destablize other countries but also, selfishly because
3. they cripple America by eliminating our industrial base


North American Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA has been a disastrous policy for working people and the environment in all three signatory nations. Under NAFTA, trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have cost the United States 420,000 jobs. At the same time, hourly compensation for Mexican workers has fallen 36%. Air and water quality also continue to deteriorate in Mexico due to rapid industrialization. NAFTA is sending jobs across our border and forcing Americans to compete with Mexican workers who earn as little as $2 per day.

Congressman Sanders is a co-sponsor of the "NAFTA Accountability Act," which demands that the United States withdraw from NAFTA if the proponents' promises for the trade agreement are not met. Some of the provisions in the act include: directing the President to renegotiate NAFTA if the U.S. trade balance with any of the other parties exceeds a 10 percent deficit; requiring certification of U.S. jobs and living standards attributable to NAFTA; ensuring that conditions affecting public health have improved along the U.S.-Mexican border; requiring that exports from the U.S. to NAFTA parties exceed imports from NAFTA parties; certifying that human and political rights are respected and that democratic systems exist in countries that are parties to NAFTA; and prohibiting expansion of NAFTA until the above and other standards are achieved.

For more information about NAFTA, you may want to visit Public Citizen's NAFTA site:
http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/nafta/naftapg.html

====================================

As a Canadian, you don't care do you about our industrial base and our workers losing their jobs? Not as long as your job which depends on it is secure- is that the deal?! :mad:

====================================

NAFTA, MFN & the WTO

Not long ago, the global economy didn’t matter much to the average American. But the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Most Favored Nation status (MFN) with China taught millions of Americans that economic forces beyond our borders can powerfully affect us, helping determine whether our jobs will be moved away, or whether our wages and benefits will be lowered.

One of the great crises facing American workers is “the race to the bottom” within the global economy. As a result of increased capital flow, various “free trade” agreements, and the role of international financial organizations like the International Monetary Fund, workers in the United States are increasingly being put in the position of having to “compete” with desperate Third World workers in Mexico, China, Vietnam and other countries who are forced to work for wages as low as 20 cents an hour.

Clearly, Congress must make radical changes in our trade policies and our relationship to such international financial organizations as the IMF and the World Bank. The goal of U.S. policy must be to improve the standard of living of workers in both the United States and the developing world and not simply protect the interests of multinational corporations. We must support “fair trade” and not “free trade,” and demand that corporate America start reinvesting in the United States.

Bernie Sanders

http://bernie.house.gov/imf/wto.asp

[Darranar]

122. THANK YOU!

I posted this lower in the thread, but in case you're interested:

NAFTA At Seven

They got it right.

[RapidCreek]

161. Yah know Tinoire...I don't agree with you

about the Catholic thing but I sure as hell do with this...beautifully written post, my friend.

RC

[Tinoire]

188. Shucks- Thanks

;) We can't all agree about everything and I really welcome that diversity. How boring this board would be if we all agreed about everything!

I'm happy as long as we agree about most things :)

Maple, Billy Bunter and I have found ourselves in agreement several times before- down in I/P for instance where Maple is a valiant warrior.

I don't get too upset by the Catholic thing but I do get frustrated because it was the Catholic Church that opened my eyes to these things. Down in Haiti, I lived and worked with nuns who spent all
their free time working with the poor. It was a real shocker and a eye-opener to see all the hard work and the good they were doing for people who otherwise would have had no education, no health-care, no food. That's why I get defensive of the Church sometimes.


It's all good but thanks a million for letting me know my friend :)

[cally]

24. Well, not everyone

I want fair trade and I recognize that the US may suffer. We've grown while exploiting workers around the world. A world economy, I believe, will help world poverty. In the short term, US companies are exploiting weaker regualtory rules in other countries and lower wage rates and labor protection. That needs regulation, but promoting a world trade economy will help equalize the world. The US may suffer because we use too many of the world's resources.

[indypaul]

28. Because "free trade"

as it is presently practiced is not fair trade and is more
or less one way traffic, thus the enormous trade deficits.
Anti "free traders" are not necessarily protectionists but
as Rostenkowski expressed we are not "patsies" either.
Trade can only be fairly practiced when it is reciprocal
and properly negotiated to the benefit of all. Again, as
it is presently practiced it is not free or fair trade.

[Maple]

34. Who signed the deals??

YOU did.

No one forces you into these things you know.

Matter of fact the US never signs any deal without gaining all advantages, even if it screws the other guy.

[pinkpops]

35. We are all brothers and sisters

in this world. So if free trade means treating each other fairly in monetary exchanges, that would be hard to criticize. But the essence of what is called "free trade" is pitting the working class of one continent against that of another continent for the benefit of the rich and powerful.

[Maple]

41. Well the brothers and sisters

all signed up.

2/3 of the WTO's 146 countries are poor ...using the only advantage they have...cheap labor.

You have tons of advantages...stop trying to hog all of them

Talk about brotherhood is cheap.

Shoe is on the other foot now eh?

[tkmorris]

67. True BUT......

You know as well as I that it wasn't the people of those poor countries that signed up. It was their governments, quite often against the wishes of those "poor people".

Just thought I'd mention that.

[Maple]

73. Oh cut it out

The 'evil evil govts' that millions of their countrymen support speak for them just fine.

You seem to think that if other countries aren't run exactly the same way the US is...even tho you hate how its run...then other govts aren't legitimate.

Sorry, but they are.

When they don't, there is a revolution.

Until then...they speak for their people, and usually do a fine job of it.

What...you think no one else cares but you?

[tkmorris]

200. My, aren't we offensive?

Maple you have no idea whatsoever what I think, and you have a habit of putting words in EVERYONE's mouth and then sneering at them for those words they never said. It's rather offensive, not to mention intellectually dishonest.

[cprise]

100. Purchased, just like our politicians here in the US

Even so, the money must be at a low-ebb because the poor countries have put their foot down. They have demanded fair trade, having tried to play the 'free' game with the rich countries maintaining their trade barriers and their own economies pillaged. They are taking steps to actively develop and protect their own crucial industries for themselves with the cooperation of their neighbors.

Poor countries' cheap labor is only an advantage to them if the bosses/owners mostly reside in the same country. Poor countries cannot better themselves without many entrepenuers of their own, who are accountable to the people immediately around them. They care more whether the water is poisoned, the air polluted, and the population subject to malnoushment and the spread of disease. In places like Japan and S. Korea, everyone has a stake in the region's long-term properity and quality of life.

Otherwise, shortsighted foreign businesses will tend to run a country into the ground. They will not allow strong local competition to emerge if they can help it. Improving the workers lot through public education is anathema, because the foreign owners have a stake in keeping their labor pool cheap. Even public water is frowned on by the free-trade ideology.

There are two schools of thought on third-world development: a) those who feel the protectionism and subsequent prosperity of the Asian Tigers was a mistake, and b) those who are bothered by the idea of regions consigned to permanent wage-slavery working for foreign corporations.

If you globalize trade, then you must globalize labor, welfare and environmental concerns. Earth is not ready for that. It is better to expand these principles regionally, the way the EU has done and South America is just beginning.

[pinkpops]

113. yeah. what you said

Even if we were objective enough to leave us workers' interest out of the discussion, there's the problem of corporations playing third world countries against each other - whoever does it the cheapest gets the jobs.

[leesa]

37. What are those great things? Have you noticed that small businesses

are now dead? Have you noticed that unregulated free trade has been a disaster for workers and the environment? Have you noticed that all the jobs are moving overseas where labor is cheap? Have you noticed that we no longer produce anything anymore which is a recipe for our demise?

But rich folks are making a bitchin' killing!

[Maple]

50. Small businesses are the backbone

of the economy actually.

And quite local.

[Vikingking66]

39. the problem is this

Theoretically, expanding free trade is great. Developing nations develop, developed nations sell stuff to newly consumerized workers,
capital is increased, and people grow closer in a free exchange of
ideas and goods.

There are certain problems which stem from the situation at hand.
Developing countries have such a huge population with very low
living standards that they act as job drains. It's more profitable
to hire a Chinese textile worker for a dollar a day instead of an
American who will want much more, especially because that American
is likely to be unionized. Overseas, companies have friendly governments
which don't have child labor, union, or environmental protections -
further allowing companies to keep costs down. American and Western
European workers lose their jobs, so in the developed world you have
a situation where an increasingly underemployed working
class and an increasingly insecure middle class gobble down Third World goods on credit.

The job loss is mediated by the creation of new industries - the internet boom which helped to create 22 million new jobs, for example.
However, this doesn't come along often enough to really create an equilibrium - eventually the jobs move to low income and high education areas like India. Furthermore, the new jobs often are of lower quality than the unionized manufacturing jobs, so you get a declining social mobility, instead of an upward.

In the eyes of the unions and the left, this is a horrible situation, whereby American workers lose their jobs to exploited foreignors and the American Dream of economic opportunity and social mobility is stolen by evil multinational corporations who are too greedy to see the long-term damage that this causes in consumption.

-----------------

However, protectionism really isn't the answer. Re-negotiating trade treaties to include child labor, union rights, and environmental protection won't in and of itself make manufacturers return to the US.
The problem is that third world labor standards are so low that it would take quite an effort to bring them up to the point where there wouldn't be a difference for the companies. Most Third World governments wouldn't agree to this because cheap labor is their ticket to industrialization - same as it was in Western Europe and the U.S in the 19th and 20th century.

One way forward, one promoted by neoliberal economists like Krugman and Robert Reich, is the creation of internal industries through infrastructure development. The developed countries have certain needs that can't really be filled by overseas manufacturing - roads, bridges, tunnels, fiber-optic cables, new schools and hospitals, more affordable housing. An activist government could step in for the private sector to provide employment in between the new industries.

A more agressive stance envisions the government actively creating new industries for American jobs, much in the way it did with the railroads in the 19th century or aerospace/military production int eh 1940's, 50's and 60's. If the government put up a sizable investment (say in the 100 billion plus range) and then directed U.S companies in the direction of energy such as solar, wind, hydro-electricity, and the production of energy-efficient cars (both electric hybrid, natural gas, and hydrogen) could create millions of new jobs. So could new technologies like nanotech, green-tech (environmentally friendly technology), or genetic technology, or whatever scientists come up with next.

Sensible economic planning could direct these new industries into pockets of unemployment, compensating for the loss of jobs caused by free trade. This neo-mercantilism could be quite powerful both for economics and national security. Heavy investments in technology could keep the U.S ahead of foreign militaries, ensuring our dominance in that sector. Lessening our dependency on foreign oil would both free our hands in the Middle East, either for withdrawal or really honest engagement, and have the effect of lessening Third World anger at America's over-consumption on energy. With a strong internal economy, America could re-position itself as the guaranteer of economic independence for the developing world against the IMF and the World Bank.

[Gringo]

47. NAFTA, FTAAA are NOT about free trade

They're about exploiting workers abroad and impoverishing/unemploying them here. I'm all for taking down trade barriers when it's sensible, but NAFTA and FTAAA are specifically designed only to benefit a small minority of people, and "banana-republicize" the US. The average wage in Mexico has not risen, and unemployment has not fallen since NAFTA, and our economy continues to slough off high-paid jobs to be replaced by crappy ones at CINN-A-BON. It's a no-brainer why we hate these trade pacts that are concocted without the input of the people, and are NOT subject to the perusal or approval of the people.

[Maple]

52. Focus here Gringo

There is no FTA...and NAFTA and world trade are two quite different things. One is solely north american...the other is global.

Free...means free of tariffs.

NAFTA has benefitted all 3 countries...and is being expanded to Chile and so on.

Please make an effort to understand something before you attempt to trash it.

[tinnypriv]

63. Try reading the "NAFTA at Seven" paper

I'll wait while you google it.

[Maple]

68. Don't bother

I work in finance and trade.

Now dump the propaganda, and read real information.

[tinnypriv]

77. The EPI is propaganda?

News to me!

You now have ZERO CREDIBILITY. Ask an economist.

Hey, I guess you could shout across your desk for one, right?

Let me know what they say! :D

I'm out of this thread. Some people deserve 900+ word responses. You don't deserve the 50 I've already given you.

:dunce:

[Maple]

91. I AM an economist

and NAFTA isn't seven.

But I'm glad you're gone.

Perhaps we'll get some people in here who actually know what they're talking about.

[Darranar]

95. It was written in 2001...

NAFTA was seven then.

[RapidCreek]

163. Actually....

January 1, 2002 was the eighth anniversary of the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

RC

[Darranar]

172. So in 2001 it was seven!

[RapidCreek]

177. Indeed

I thought I'd nail the exact date down for you.....Gee wiz...and we're not even economists. Go figure!

RC

[juajen]

181. I totally agree

For the very first time I am putting someone on "ignore". I am just shocked it's a Canadian. Or, is it? We really don't know who she is, do we?

[Darranar]

94. In case anyone's interested...

I think I've found it.

NAFTA At Seven

[Tinoire]

127. Excellent Article and links! Thanks for posting this

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have experienced a net loss of jobs under NAFTA, with the U.S. losing 766,030 actual and potential jobs between 1993 and 2000 (see NAFTA's Hidden Costs from the report NAFTA at Seven ). With exports from every state being offset by faster growth in imports, net job loss figures range from a low of 395 jobs lost in Alaska to a high of 82,354 in California. Other hard-hit states include Michigan, New York, Texas, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia, each with more than 20,000 jobs lost. These states all have high concentrations of the kinds of industries (motor vehicles, textiles and apparel, computers and electrical appliances) that subsequently have expanded rapidly in the maquilidora zones in Mexico since the implementation of NAFTA.

The U.S. manufacturing sector lost 544,750 jobs (72% of all jobs lost) between 1993 and 2000, due to growth in the net export deficit between the U.S. and Canada (see the methodology section and the accompanying table). One of the hardest-hit sectors within manufacturing is electrical electronic machinery (108,773 jobs lost), which includes home audio and video equipment (28,995 jobs), communications equipment such as telephones and cell phones (33,254 jobs), and appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines (data not available for this sub-sector). Other hard-hit industries in the U.S. included motor vehicles and equipment (83,643 jobs lost), textiles and apparel (83,258 jobs, combined), and lumber and wood products (48,306 jobs). The service sector also lost 112,499 jobs as an indirect result of the loss of markets to foreign producers of traded goods. This includes legal, accounting, and data processing services that are used as inputs to traded goods production, and also temporary workers that are contracted out to the manufacturing sector.

Overall, the states with the most job losses are: California (82,354 jobs lost), Michigan (46,817 jobs), New York (46,210 jobs), Texas (41,067 jobs), and Ohio (37,694 jobs). Many other states have lost tens of thousands of jobs, as shown in the attached table.


Within the states, job losses by industry reflect the geographic distribution of major industries in the United States. For example, employment in motor vehicles and equipment has been particularly hard hit by NAFTA in Michigan (25,912 jobs lost), Ohio (9,826), Indiana (7,119), Tennessee (3,658), Illinois (3,468), and California (3,002).


The electronic equipment sector has also suffered, with large losses in California (14,332 jobs lost), Indiana (9,721), Illinois (8,316), New York (6,288), Texas (6,170), and Pennsylvania (5,042).


The textiles and apparel industry is concentrated in Los Angeles, New York City, and the South, with major job losses in North Carolina (10,781 jobs lost), California (10,756), New York (7,901), Alabama (5,126), Tennessee (4,982), Georgia (4,900), Pennsylvania (4,869), and Texas (4,733).


The lumber and wood products sectors have lost jobs in the Northwest and Southern states (some of the latter are hard hit by job losses in furniture production). Hard-hit states in this industry include Oregon (3,427 jobs lost), California (3,337), North Carolina (2,592), Texas (2,376), Washington (2,324), and Alabama (1,991).


http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/briefingpapers_nafta01_impactstates

[RapidCreek]

164. Free trade means free of subsidies

but not when those subisdies are Canadian, right?

RC

[LWolf]

53. What Gringo said.

Thanks.

:hi:

[Superfly]

58. Free trade coffee is OK....

everything else "free trade" is not.

Don't ask me why? :shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. The coffee shops advertise FAIR trade coffee

not FREE trade coffee.

In other words, coffee obtained from growers and harvesters who earn a living wage.

[not systems]

60. I'm not against free trade.

I'm for free trade but with labor, enviromental, and
human rights standards.

But then again I'm for Dean who is a free trade supporter
with similar views.

[laura888]

64. please explain how the U.S. is going to regulate...

...and enforce our wage/environmental standards in foreign countries.

Will we have a U.S. government person monitoring each foreign place of business at all times? Or, at minimum, a U.S. government person looking at the payroll and human resources documents for each place every week or so? someone testing factory run-off and surrounding streams and rivers?

Isn't this going to mean major U.S. tax dollars? Perhaps the creation of an entire new department within the Federal government - perhaps called the FOREIGN labor department and the FOREIGN E.P.A?

[not systems]

80. Put in the treaties...

then backup the treaties by allowing suits to bring action against
trade with a country that violates the treaty commitment.

Example:

A treaty allows open trade with country X.

The treaty specifies county X must not use
child labor to produce goods exported under
the treaty.

Anti-child labor group Y documents county X is
using child labor.

Group Y brings suit to enforce the treaty and
wins the case.

The free trade treaty with county X is suspended
until they quit using child labor.

[laura888]

86. yes- this is a good idea

do you mean that these corporations could be brought into U.S. courts and fined millions of $ for violations? that's a good idea

however, I don't believe it goes far enough...

Just how many anti-child labor watch-dogs are out there? it seems that watching out for these violations would require a massive effort and many, many people devoted to it full-time.

In thinking about this, perhaps there might be a global watch-dog type group, much like the U.S., that all international corporations must answer to.

I'm a firm believer that business, left to its devices, will run rough-shod over workers.

[laura888]

87. on edit, I mean "U.N" not "U.S." n/t

n/t

[juajen]

183. Actually, their competition would be the one to keep up with them

After all, if they are following the rules and losing out to someone who does not, they will certainly "rat" them out and/or bring suit in country that is exporting goods.

[Booger]

78. Would everyone buy

more expensive items?
Less items because of the increased cost of what fair wages would cause?

I know I would.
And I do the best I can.
Supporting local farmers for produce at the market.
Locally made soap.
Many items at the grocery store are from local suppliers/growers.

It's more expensive, and you have to seek them out.
But to me, it's actually the fair way to shop, and support.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

89. Because the free trade agreements

have clauses in them that allow corporations to override another country's laws. That's just one thing.

I'm not against trade. I'm not a Luddite. I benefit from international commerce, since I get 90% of my income from Japan, but that's okay, because I provide a service that is scarce in Japan, turning Japanese prose into native English that doesn't read like a translation. They pay rates are enough to sustain me in a moderately middle class lifestyle. No problem.

But when corporations that could be hiring American workers throw long-term, hard-working employees off the job just so they can go to some Third World hellhole to employ starving people who will be kept in line by the local thugs if they dare protest their wages or working conditions, I'm sorry, that's just plain immoral.

It's no more desirable than when a corporation operating domestically says that it wants "flexibility." If the top brass start talking about "flexibility," that's the signal for the workers to run for cover, because it means "We're about to screw you over to keep our profits high." Somehow, only the rank and file workers ever have to be "flexible" by losing hours or being changed from permanent to temp. No one ever says, "We don't need the CEO today. Let's dock his pay."

It's the old corporate right-wing hypocrisy. "We're only thinking of the poor people in the Third World." My God, they get so sympathetic and self-righteous that you'd think that corporations were ruled by Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama.

The poor people of the Third World are the very last thing on those greedheads' minds when they set up a plant in Indonesia or Haiti. They tell their shareholders that they need to cut costs, but somehow it's only shopfloor labor costs that need to be cut. The top executives must have their multimillion dollar bonuses. Oh, yes, that's absolutely essential, because otherwise the poor dears would lose the desire to do whatever it is they do. And the shareholders must have big returns every quarter. The hell with the American working class--we're screwing them to get a few extra dollars per share, and we can even pretend we're the Peace Corps while we're doing it!

If these companies were really concerned about the poor people of the Third World they would set up funds to provide start-up money for indigenous entrepreneurs who wanted to make products for local markets. This would not only create jobs in the local economy but would provide a faster route to economic security than working twelve hours a day for a couple of dollars a day and then having to sleep on the floor in a firetrap of a building.

The reason that American consumers can afford only merchandise made in sweatshops is that the manufacturing jobs that once made it possible for blue collar workers to own a house and a car or two and send kids to college on one income are mostly gone.

The free trade advocates cannot answer the question of what to do with all the displaced workers. Do you tell a fifty-year-old factory worker with a high school education that he's supposed to go back to school and become a software engineer---oops! those jobs are leaving,too. Well, um....

Oh, and about the 146 poor countries that want lower tariffs? How many of those leaders want the trade favors so that companies can bribe them to set up mfg. plants there, which will then produce low-tariff imports? I've read a lot about economic development in Third World countries, and government corruption has been a huge factor in the countries that lag behind.

[laura888]

92. well put, Lydia!

I agree with you completely!

[AndyTiedye]

137. It is Not Unheard-of for a CEO to Dock His Own Pay

> No one ever says, "We don't need the CEO today. Let's dock his pay."

The CEO of Cisco, John Chambers, reduced his own salary to $1 for 2001 and 2002.

(Disclaimer. I work for Cisco)
(Edit: above disclaimer was not visible due to brackets turning into HTML)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

142. Well he's the exception

There are more like Michael Eisner of Disney, who acted so proud that his bonus had been dropped from $10 million to a mere $1 million.

There are some decent executives, but ever since the beginning of the Reagan administration, rank and file workers have been treated as disposable, to be paid as little as possible, while executive compensation has risen dramatically.

[Paulie]

162. His Salary May Be a Dollar

But he's not taking home a dollar.

He's been getting plenty of stockoptions, $4m this year, $6m last year. His "Salary" in 2001 was $268,000, which won't pay his tax bill when he exercises his options. Probably makes enough in other areas that he can work for basically no Salary to meet his "every need".

I read the financial statements of the company I work for. Do you read your own?

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/749/ar2003/online/proxy/index.html#compensation

This whole "Salary is ony $1" crap is noise, plain and simple.

[Maple]

98. Sorry guys...but none of the immediate preceeding posts to me are true

We already have arbitration and judgement boards with hearings and fines. You skipped reading about them in your propaganda handouts.

Mostly you just all want to believe that you are hard done by in the US....all those poor countries are just hosing you victimized Americans...and that none of this is in anyway your personal fault or problem.

It's always easier to blame others.

Well real world now, folks...ancient ideology from the fifties no longer works...and certainly not in the wider world outside your borders.

Do what you claim Americans do...learn how to compete...only fairly this time.

Oh wait...did you think YOU were, and no one else was?

Surprise!

[Cat Atomic]

101. Wow- I see your background in economics also makes you

a psychologist, and a mind reader. Fascinating!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

107. Well, I knew a lot of economists in graduate school

so I'm not surprised at Maple's attitude. Not all economists were like Maple, but enough of them were.

And that's all I'll say.

[cprise]

108. LOL! And I'm impressed by the fact that

...a profligate free-trade crusader (sorry, the correct term should be 'ideologue') here on DU is now admonishing us to compete 'fairly'.

[Darranar]

105. Thanks for yet another strawman...

Many of us are concerned about the horrible conditions of OTHER workers in Third World countries. Many of us are concerned when corporations basically dominate a country like Bolivia (see Tinoire's post above.) And yes, that has to do with free trade. Yes, America needs to make efforts to stop it, by enforcing labor regulations and environmental regulations. I'm not talking about ELIMINATING free trade; I'm talking about regulating it.

The same way you regulate capitalism.

[sujan]

104. I support it

[durutti]

109. "Free Trade" is a Misnomer

I don't oppose free trade. I don't oppose "globalization".

I oppose neoliberalism -- which is what's currently be sold as "free trade" -- because it's not really free. It's a scheme to protect big business and destroy competitors. It is, in effect, a new colonialism or economic imperialism.

I support globalization from below.

[DemExpat]

184. I also support globalization......

it's corporate protectionism and monopolies I reject.

There really is no turning back from the ever-increasing interconnections between the world and the permeable borders of nations.

Ways must be found to keep the processes as FAIR as possible to all concerned.

DemEx

[ScreamingMeemie]

110. I am not so much against free trade, any other way than how

we do it here. If there were unions in Mexico, I'd feel a little bit better about it. My husband wouldn't lose work (CNC programmer) to a worker willing to receive substandard wages. My husband wouldn't be forced to pick up a minimum wage job putting together pallets (yes this is true) after putting in a full day's work as a SKILLED tradesman just to make ends meet. Yes, this is why I am against free trade. It's killing our work force. It's killing our families, it's killing our future.

[mhr]

117. And Your Story is The Reason I'm Against Free Trade

Well said!

[Name removed]

128. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FDRrocks]

133. The world market and free trade does not work

when business interests dominate the governments and define the market rather than adhering to it. Free trade, as it is going, will open this country up to third world conditions, as if business continues to get thier way, we will all have no jobs, and disease and crime will come upon us like a plague.

[Chants]

136. People are against free trade because...

...of a lot of reasons.

Free trade is crucial to developing third world nations. The jobs we outsource go to people who have little alternative to economic development. They can either work the subsitence farm, work in a low tech craft, or some other indiginous market, or take a job that pays triple what they make otherwise, even if American workers do the same thing for 3 times more the money. People take these jobs because they know it's the best deal out there for them.

Is this exploitation? Technically, you bet it is. The workers are clearly being exploited, but it is more than that. The corporations are exploiting underdeveloped economies. These economies have not been able to develop market systems capable of paying these laborers anything close to what these corporations are prepared to pay them. Building factories in these places makes perfect sense for everyone involved. The workers get paid, more cash get infused into the local economy, tax revenue goes up, cottage industries spring up servicing the workers, parents have more to spend on thier children, and the overall standard of living goes up.

The down side to this happy marriage is the American worker. The American worker, who has worked his or her butt off for this corporation simply can't afford to to accept the wages of a third world worker and remain solvent in a highly developed -- and expensive -- developed nation. That is a problem, a very serious problem, morally and economically.

If enough American workers suffer, then the overall American economy suffers. Consumer spending goes down, children are less well off financially, depression, alchoholism, and the rest of the parade of horribles rears its ugly head.

On the other hand, corporate profits drive the economy as well. Pensions, insurance, and a whole host of other benefits thrive off of corporate profits. Grandma and grandpa depend on pensions to live. Adequately funded insurance plans save lives. Even the workers who lost their jobs have well funded pensions.

Of course, a well funded pension means little to the some 40 years old worker with outmoded skills. Workers need jobs, not pensions. If they dont earn now, their pension means little.

So where do you strike a balance? Well, this is not a new problem. Industrialized nations all became industrialized through trade barriers. They protected thier indiginous industries to the point where they were sufficiently developed, and then went global the best they could.

[FDRrocks]

140. I think it might work...

if the government was allowed into economics insofar as to regulate companies. I mean, we basically give them welfare, they need to face the downside of thier bargain.

As it is companies, by nature, are focused on the bottom line and b/c of that conservative. They don't want new technology really, they don't want to pay for RandD (some companies have us paying for it!), they just want to increase thier profits on what they have. This means no new industries.

The current situation is not working. They can disregard the American workers, but they profit from our banking systems and other infrastructure, and it is infuriating to see so many greedy assholes so willing to sell thier country out to increase the size of thier bank account.

[Darranar]

146. I disagree...

it ISN'T good for the foreign worker.

Even in the case of wages that are actually higher then average being paid to the real worker - which isn't always true; look at labor in Mexico, for instance - the economies of that nation CAN'T develop. It's a short-term benefit for the worker - he gets good wages for a while, but his economy never improves. He's always working in bad working conditions for little pay, even as prices rise, since competition on the field of labor is basically eliminated by those corporations. So, in the long run, it's bad for almost ALL workers.

And all the above doesn't even mention the problems corporations cause in spheres other then strictly capitalistic.

On edit: What also happens is that small businesses experience problems. Local industries are abandoned for the new corporate industries. This raises prices because it lowers competition. So, in the end, the workers hardly find themselves better off. Rather, they find themselves worse off. Their economy is stuck where it is; conditions won't improve, wages won't improve, and they can barely feed their family with what they get. This leads to child labor; with child labor comes overpopulation; with overpopulation comes child labor and more overpopulation.

[Darranar]

138. For all those interested: My opinions on this issue in full

I support globalization. A globally-based economy has more buyers, more sellers, a larger workforce, and simply more capital floating around. The problem with what's happening now is that change comes too quickly and regulations simply aren't there.

All economies need regulations, global or local. Environmental and labor regulations need to come into effect. That's the first step that needs to be taken; it will improve the lives of thousands around the world, it will help the global economy, and it will slow down the transfer of manufacturing jobs to other countries. Additionally, corporations should be required to follow basic human decency in regard to control of a nation's government.

The main problem with regulating globalization/free trade is that no international agency is around that can really enforce those regulations everywhere. That is one reason I support a stronger and more fair UN.

The WTO and NAFTA need to be scrapped, to be replaced by treaties which have real regulations and conditions to them. Those regulations and conditions need to be enforced, or else they won't affect anything.

[AndyTiedye]

150. There is a Bigger Risk to Our Ability to Compete Globally

And the Bushidas and their apologists completely ignore it, because they ARE it.
People in other countries are not buying American goods because it's just not
cool anymore to be associated with America. Our government is making us
look like the world's biggest bully, and a lot of people don't like that.
These people have stopped buying American stuff.

This is costing us more than any tariff possibly could.

[Darranar]

151. That's a good point...

thanks for pointing it out.

[genius]

143. We like American jobs going to Americans rather than to foreign

child slave laborers. Do you know what kind of conditions children work in to do the jobs that have left the country? Your job could be next - unless you are one of the execs sending your employees' jobs elsewhere.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. Of course, if the corporations really wanted to economize

they could move their headquarters to some Third World country and hire a CEO for $100,000 a year.

;-)

[cprise]

154. CEO's are part of the investor class

...so that would not jibe with the kind of world they desire.

Investors belong in the West, and the workers belong in the 3rd world. Doncha know...

The idea to competitive peers in foreign countries is incredibly scary to the rich.

[burr]

149. too many Gephardt supporters???

I've encountered a few Kucinich supporters, but Gephardt supports are a rare breed in this forum. In fact, I only know of one DUer that I'm certain is a Gephardt supporter. There may be more, but they probably do more lurking than posting in this forum.

[Hippo_Tron]

159. Umm I frankly don't understand what it is...

I have yet to sit down and read about what NAFTA and CAFTA actually are and what side I should be taking. Therefore I guess I can say that people should be free to trade or something like that.

[cprise]

166. The first thing to remember is it's almost entirely unlike the EC

The EC was set up in Europe to create a giant trade zone where companies could trade across borders freely, thus encouraging economic acticity. But the EC was part of a broader program of European integration, where certain labor, safety and environmental standards ALSO crossed borders.

NAFTA isn't connected with anything that would provide environment- or worker-related protections. It gives companies the right to trade freely across borders in North America AND the power to strike down laws in other countries in a special NAFTA court if they interfere with a company's profits in any way.

http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/CH__11/index.cfm

[ElsewheresDaughter]

169. not against "free trade" i just want FAIR TRADE!!!

[Virginian]

173. Against Free trade, but not against FAIR TRADE.

Maybe because I have been out of work for the last 26 weeks because someone from India was brought over to do my job for less than a fair living wage.

<on edit>
As far as retraining, I did retrain in the late 1990's to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. My skills are somewhat current. I can't afford to retrain again every 5 - 7 years at the prices Oracle charges in the US when they charge one tenth that amount in India.

[JCMach1]

175. Most are for 'FAIR TRADE'

There is a definite difference.

[liberalcapitalist]

176. the answer is obvious

free trade allows companies to exploit the American consumer base without providing its citizenry with jobs. Supercorporations can move American unionized jobs to third-world countries and pay the workers 15 cents an hour to work in horrid conditions, then export the goods to the US for high profit. This isn't even in consideration of environmental issues.

What is good for big business is invariably NOT good for you.

[rman]

179. because 'FREE Trade' = Corporate CONTROLLED Trade

Brings great things? by means of trickle-down perhaps?

Wealth has been trickling in the wrong direction for the last 30 years. The higher the income, the more it has increased. Lower incomes have fallen.


"To really see what is going on you need to look at the top 1%, the top 0.1% and the top 0.01%. Then you discover that there has been an explosion of income on the very top of the scale:

top 1%
1970 9%
2000 22%

top 0.1%
1970 2.8%
2000 11%

top 0.01%
1970 1%
2000 5%

We are by these numbers fully back to and by some measures above the level of concentration of income that we had in the 1920's."

Paul Krugman
rtsp://real.dialnsa.edu/REAL_BEARD/spring2003_events/schwartz.rm (realplayer)

[Booberdawg]

180. Why do you always start threads and then never come back?

[RapidCreek]

182. punch and run baby...punch and run

he ran off to copy more stimulating talking points. I figure about now he's working on how to wrap them all up in innocuous questions.

RC

[Gore1FL]

185. Not at all against free trade

Free trade bewtween the states is why our economy is as stable as it is. Frre trade held the EU grow.

the problem is not Free trade, it is the uneven worker standards that is not addressed that is the problem.

People often mistake Free trade as the issue, when actually, the whole problem is worker equality. Fic that and Free Trade would have no opposition.

[leftofthedial]

190. because it ain't free and it's a bad trade.

nt

[WillyBrandt]

191. I'm in favor of free trade

'Twasn't always so. But after reading enough of Paul Krugman's writings, I'm very much in favor of free trade. This "fair trade" stuff is, frankly, a bunch of politically expedient baloney I have no choice but to overlook. But NAFTA and the WTO are good ideas. The only problem is not enough free trade, especially when it comes to the US and EU subsidizing agriculture.

[Classical_Liberal]

192. I don't see where it has given us any great things

I don't like the chapter 11 provision of Nafta.

[Kamika]

197. Because with free trade we will lose jobs

I used to be a pro free trader but when i thought about it i can only see one thing.



Poor nations will compete with us and thus make it so we have to compete with them, by laying off ppl, and moving whole companies to india etc.


Sorry but i cant support that i have to support my own country before i support the world