Kerry, Edwards & Kucinich on Jobs

[redqueen]

http://www.opednews.com/mccullock022704_jobs.htmby Thomas McCullock

OpEdNews.com

In last night's debate between the democratic candidates, Dennis Kucinich challenged both John Kerry and John Edwards to pledge to cancel NAFTA to protect jobs. Both refused, claiming they would instead "fix" NAFTA.

As Mr. Kucinich points out, that's impossible. We do not have the authority to do so, the WTO would simply overrule any such attempt. Our only option is to withdraw from this misguided treaty which has for years enslaved the poor in other countries, and now steals jobs from American workers.

Americans were willing to accept NAFTA when it looked like it resulted in the servitude of workers in other countries, bringing lower prices to stores like Wal-Mart. But today, NAFTA is causing the loss of millions of jobs in the US, as corporations shift work to virtually indentured workers outside of our borders, and away from US labor protections. The only winner under NAFTA is the corporations looking for cheaper and cheaper labor. Make no mistake, NAFTA isn't about The USA vs. Other Countries, it's Corporations vs. Everyone Else.

John Kerry voted for NAFTA, and now refuses to repeal it. Both Kerry and Edwards voted for the China agreement (aka the Wal-Mart Jackpot). Only Dennis Kucinich has vowed to cancel NAFTA as his first official act as President.

Which candididate do you think has interests of the American worker in mind, and which are merely front men for out of control corporations looking for cheap labor?

[redqueen]

1. Are these questions too hard?

:kick:

[DK666]

2. I Agree.. I do not like NAFTA

But lets take the same tact with the Iraq conflict. Would the candidate's be willing to remove all troops from Iraq after they got elected. I think not. NAFTA is here to stay we just need to enforce the policies. I do not like NAFTA never have, never will. If we cancel the treaties it will affect everyone and not in a good way.

m2c - imho

[redqueen]

3. Can't enforce the policies

This is one of my biggest problems with media.

Any changes proposed to NAFTA have to 1st be approved by all the parties and then be approved by the WTO. The tribunals in the WTO are all handpicked appointees of multinational corporations.

Do you really think they'll vote against their bosses' bottom lines?

This needs serious discussion but I guess nobody really cares too much.

Or maybe it's easier to believe something you'd like to be true (that it can be easily 'fixed').

[DK666]

4. DK is right.

But I see a bigger problem with the long term economic impact of a protectionist trade scheme.

[redqueen]

5. Fair enough

But what's the more important goal?

Keeping jobs in America so that our economy doesn't sputter for a decade a la Japan? Or forestalling a future trade war?

We are losing jobs now. IMO the more critical problem is clear.

[lams712]

10. BILATERALISM IS NOT PROTECTIONISM

Protectionism means slapping tariffs on imported products in order to raise the price of said imports so that they are higher than domestic producers. Thus the domestic producers are afforde a degree of "protection" from the heavy risks of competition.

Desiring to negotiate fair trade between countries in one-on-one agreements (after all, each country and situation is different) which takes into account anti-dumping provisions, environmental standards, and labor rights, etc. is NOT PROTECTIONISM.

[Nicholas_J]

11. Both the WTO and the E.E.C.

Are drafting large scale tariffs and outright prohibition of hundreds of American made products based on the U.S. code's favoritism of American corporations that have set up their headquarters offshore in order to avoid U.S. taxation, and are still having their products given lower rates of taxation. Kucinich's ideas on bi-lateral trade agreements would result in even further bans and tariffs on U.S. products, resulting in even more job loss, not increased jobs.

The U.S. is already lagging seriously in the trade deficit area due to the non-competitive nature of its industrial base.And the Euro is fast replacing the dollar as the defacto world monitary unit.

The economic powerhouses of the E.E.C. already do more outsourcing of older style manufacturing base products, yet they do not have the problems that the U.S. has with jobn loss as a result, because they have a fast track system to retrain and re-employ displaced workers. Kerry's model for dealing with such displaced employees closely matches the French and German methods of making sure that outsourcicing does not displace workers.

Kucinich;s ideas are not based on looking forwards to a more sensible approach to job loss, but look backwards towards 1930's and 1940's style economic isolationism. THe U.S. became a mojor superpowe when it started to abandon protectionistic schemes to protect jobs based on internal political schemes rather than intelligent responses to a changing economic landscape. Bi-lateral treaties are the worse way of creating a level playing field. A base treaty with a set of rules that apply to everyone, and side treaties which deal with the differnt stages of economic development of the various p



The E.E.C. has had a long dispute with the U.S. about protectionism, and they have pretty ,uch thrown in the towel.:

EU Imposes Penalty Tariffs on US Exports
VOA News
01 Mar 2004, 13:07 UTC


The European Union says it has started imposing trade sanctions against the United States in retaliation for tax breaks given to U.S. exporters.
Officials in Brussels say a five percent European Union penalty tariff awaits such American exports as jewelry, refrigerators, toys and paper products. The penalty will climb by one percentage point each month that the United States fails to bring its laws in line with international trade rulings.

The tariffs could cost American exporters up to $300 million this year. The World Trade Organization, which supports the sanctions, has ruled against the United States in its long-running dispute with Europe over the so-called Foreign Sales Corporation law.

The WTO says the law runs counter to global trade rules by providing tax breaks to thousands of American companies doing business overseas. The tax break is estimated to be worth $5 billion a year to American exporters, including such giants as Microsoft and Boeing.

http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=72530A5C-0493-4220-8CA5943A1ED25DF2

EU to impose tariffs against US

By Stephen Evans
BBC North America business correspondent

The European Union is set to impose tariffs on US companies that will cost American business hundreds of millions of dollars.
The EU trade commissioner said a 5% duty would be put on exports from the US to Europe from Monday because of unfair help to firms by Washington.

Pascal Lamy said rates would continue to rise unless the US changed its law.

But with jobs an issue in the US, there will be grassroots political pressure not to back down.


The trade dispute between America and Europe has been a war of words so far with tariffs threatened but not imposed.

That will now change.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3491770.stm

It means we must play gby the same rules that the rest of the world does, or have our ecnomy subject to massive boycott by the rest of the world. You dont do this by bi-lateralism. In fact, Kucinich's ideals are ones that this recent move by the E.E.C. has indicated will result not in bi-lateral treaties, but in no treaties. Or worse, making U.S. products so costly outside of the United States. Or outright prohibition of trade with the U.S. at all,resulting in even greater job loss.

[rdfi-defi]

12. a few points in response

" the US is already lagging seriously ......... due to the non-competitive nature of its industrial base."

what you are saying is US workers who are employed in the manufacturing sector make to much money. that US corporations can't compete without paying workers wages that result in the destitution of those workers.

so your answer is to "have a fast track system to retain and re-employ displaced workers."

retain: i don't think the US will have a problem retaining workers, people are not going to mexico or india to compete for jobs.

re-employ: i don't follow, if the jobs that don't require high levels of education are out-sourced, were are you going to re-employ these people? the jobs are gone. what are these phantom industries that will employ joe and jane american, who do not have a degree ?

not that a degree grantees you job security anymore. which brings us to another huge issue with nafta and the other "free" trade agreements.

capital flight, which an integral part of this economic seem

if a corporation can move its' monetary resources across borders at will, no amount of education will protect your job. the bottom line rules all. if a co. can make more money by paying a computer programmer in india less than an american computer programmer, than by god they will do it. not to mention the money they will save on things like health insurance.

"kucinich's ideas are not based on looking forwards to a more sensible approach to job loss," what could be more sensible than preventing the jobs from leaving the US. We were told 10 years ago nafta would benefit all involved. it is simply not true. why should i believe it this time around?

as far as the anti-democratic entities like the E.E.C. that have a problem with our economic policies, they don't have a leg to stand on if we junk these trade agreements. i agree that the US has not been playing by the "rules," and it is unfair to developing states. sometimes it seems like we had the world sign these agreements just to get our foot in the door and privatize whatever they had. a state's resources should be used for the benefit of the actual living breathing people of that state. not the unaccountable corporations that serve only the bottom line.

as far as the rest of the world boycotting the US market, i highly doubt it. the countries that we engaged in bi-lateral trade would love to have access to the US market. it would become a prize economic possession, a bi-lateral trade agreement with the US of A! there is a sector of capital that would be highly upset. they would attempt to cause harm to the US economy and therefor its' citizens. and there is the rub, we can either let this agenda continue and (for working class folks) loose our democratic influence over our own economy and our own lives, or we can stop it now, strengthen our internal economy through domestic investment in everything from alternative energy to zero unemployment.

[scarletwoman]

13. Thank you for an excellent post!

Your last 'graph bears repeating:

"the countries that we engaged in bi-lateral trade would love to have access to the US market. it would become a prize economic possession, a bi-lateral trade agreement with the US of A! there is a sector of capital that would be highly upset. they would attempt to cause harm to the US economy and therefor its' citizens. and there is the rub, we can either let this agenda continue and (for working class folks) loose our democratic influence over our own economy and our own lives, or we can stop it now, strengthen our internal economy through domestic investment in everything from alternative energy to zero unemployment."

Good work!

Thanks again,
sw

Oh, and... Go Dennis!

[lams712]

14. Are you relying on the WTO to bolster your arguments?????

"Free trade" is more a religious ideology than a practical public policy. The sound economic theories first posed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo on which free trade theory is based no longer apply in our modern economy. Our economy is no longer made up of numerous independent firms, none of which are large enough to have any influence on the market. There are very few modern economies that are anywhere near "full employment" (an important assumption that is taken for granted in free trade theory). Modern trade has more to do with large corporations having an easier time to move capital around the world in order to take advantage of lower labor costs, lax environmental standards, etc. (in fact, most of what is now called "international trade" actually takes place between different divisions of multi-national corporations).

The textbook example of "free trade" does not exist in this modern monopoly/oligopoly corporate dominated economy. Any solution to address the problems of trade have to first let go of the ideological underpinnings of trade theory.

[Nicholas_J]

15. Protectionism is not related to tariffs alone

But the WTO has also ruled that other forms of favoritism can be considered subsidization. This giving corporation tax break to keep jobs in America could declared illegal by the WTO resulting in tariif and other sanctions on U.S. products, which results in less products sold, which results in factories reducing output, wich result in layoffs. The E.U, just put massive sanctions into effect today which will result in the los of 300 million in trade with Europe this year, and double next. For far less protection than Kucinich is suggesting. Kucinich's leaving the WTO and NAFTA will result immediately in even further sanctions on the part of the E.U. our largest trade partners after Mexico and Canada, as the E.U. members are forbidden from engaging in bi-lateral agreements as conditions for E.U. membership. The results of Kucinich's suggestions will then result in sanctions that will make the ones placed today look like a minor economic blip.

[mermaid]

18. Let's Not Forget About CAFTA

CAFTA, the proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement actually stands for

Conservative
Administration -
F**k
The
Americans!

[redqueen]

6. Cute teddy bear kick!

[goodhue]

7. kick

[lams712]

8. Edwards and Kerry are "business as usual" candidates who...

....won't end up doing jack about trade and jobs. (JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY).

[sangh0]

9. IS DK still a protectionist?

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

16. I thought this thread was about jobs.

If I'd known it was just another NAFTA rant I never would have opened it.

[ThirdWheelLegend]

17. Go NAFTA!

KICK FOR NAFTA HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH JOBS!

TWL

[Feanorcurufinwe]

19. Kick for misrepresenting what I said.