I no longer believe in free trade

[LuckyTheDog]

I just don't think it works for us and I don't thing the rest of the world will ever play by the Boy Scout-like rules the free-traders want the U.S. to play by. The result is that we are sacrificing our sovereignty and a lot of middle class jobs to an ideal that will never be achieved.

I say we erect some trade barriers, leave NAFTA and the WTO, and re-think the whole thing.

Anybody else?

[niceypoo]

1. Tariffs to make foreign goods

cost the same as domestically produced goods.

[LuckyTheDog]

4. And that is a bad thing?

How so? I don't think we need to slap tariffs on everything. But, I don't see why we need to keep shipping jobs overseas and hollowing out our industrial base. That is a lot to sacrifice on the altar of "free trade." The U.S. is a COUNTRY, not just an economy. We need to act like one.

[Booster]

32. AND giving companies who ship jobs overseas tax benefits. WTF?

[Nederland]

126. Free Trade is wealth distribution

It cause wealth to flow from rich countries to poor countries. Funny how so many leftists are in favor of transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, until it involves "their" wealth...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

130. It's a race to the bottom

It causes some people in poor countries to enjoy higher wages for a brief period, until the corporations find a country where the workers will do it cheaper. Manufacturers are already moving the factories they relocated in Mexico from the U.S. (where they pay workers a fraction of what they paid here and provide them with shitty conditions) to other countries in Latin America in droves because they found people who will do the work even cheaper.

But hey, fuck the U.S. middle class and fuck workers in general, right? Keep drinking that free trade koolaid. I guess your job is "safe". :eyes:


BTW, a lot of people on DU would probably find the use of the term "leftist" to be derogatory. I know I do.

[Nederland]

160. You post merely proves my point

Yes, all other things being equal (which they never are, BTW) corporations will move their factories to a country where the workers will do it cheaper. In other words, corporations will end up giving jobs to the poorest people on the planet. Once you find the poorest people on the planet though, you've got nowhere else to go, right? The end result is that those "poorest people" will be better off than they were. That is why I call it redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

163. Oh right.

That's why a decade and a half of "free trade" has led to a narrowing of worldwide income disparity. Except oh wait, it hasn't.

You fail. :thumbsdown:

[Nederland]

166. Missing the point

I said nothing about narrowing worldwide income disparity. Believe it or not, it is possible to transfer billions of dollars in wealth from a rich country to a poor country and still end up with greater income disparity between the two. Do the math, you'll see I'm right. No, all I ever claimed was that free trade benefitted poor countries by creating a transfer of wealth to them. I still stand by that statement.

[StreetKnowledge]

175. Which it doesn't.

It just creates dollar an hour jobs for people to get their cheap crap made, often in deplorable conditions. It would be a better idea for said nations to grow their own industries, would it not?

Free trade only works between nations of similar income and technology levels, where the workers' productivity makes the difference.

[Nederland]

179. Your way doesn't work

Every poor country that ever moved up in the world to become rich did so by increased trade with richer countries. There are no exceptions.

[StreetKnowledge]

189. Try again.

Most developed countries built their own industries and worked to raise their standards to the rest of the world. The US, Canada, Western Europe and Australia all did this. Japan and South Korea built off of trade, yes, but they didn't have many other choices, having to buy resources for these companies to function.

Answer this - after 15 years of NAFTA, has Mexico's average living standard improved? They themselves say no. When Fox came to power in 2000 and started trying to raise wages and worker safety laws, he started losing jobs and influence as a result. Brazil after Lula da Silva came to power in 2002 is the same story. Post-apartheid South Africa is another example.

The Chinese are seeing living standards rise - but that's because they are making goods for much of the rest of the world and protecting their own markets, ensuring higher-paid jobs exist. YOU try importing a car to China. You'll pay the value of the car in import tarriffs. Surprised?

Why do you think countries which went down the road of free trade with disastrous results - Argentina is the best example of this - are turning the other way now. Argentina went down the free trade road for the 1990s, and paid for it dearly - the country went broke in 2002 and discovered that its nationals had vast sums of money in foreign bank accounts (like $200 Billion+ here), but their country's industrial infrastructure was a mess and they had spent ten years seeing everything but the living standards of the rich go downhill.

America's headed down that path, too.

When are we gonna change course? When millions are on bread lines?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

197. I wish I could recommend a reply.

Very well put. :thumbsup:

Do you think you could make this an OP?

[Nederland]

218. Response

Most developed countries built their own industries and worked to raise their standards to the rest of the world. The US, Canada, Western Europe and Australia all did this. Japan and South Korea built off of trade, yes, but they didn't have many other choices, having to buy resources for these companies to function.

This is not the example I asked for. I said "Every poor country that ever moved up in the world to become rich did so by increased trade with richer countries". The countries that you list first have always been in the rich country club, and you concede that South Korea and Japan did exactly as I claimed: they got rich by trading with countries richer than themselves.

Answer this - after 15 years of NAFTA, has Mexico's average living standard improved? They themselves say no. When Fox came to power in 2000 and started trying to raise wages and worker safety laws, he started losing jobs and influence as a result. Brazil after Lula da Silva came to power in 2002 is the same story. Post-apartheid South Africa is another example.

Mexico is much better off as a result of NAFTA. Any rational comparison of Mexico's pre-NAFTA per capita GDP to it's post NAFTA per capita GDP reveals that. A look at per capita GDP post NAFTA shows an initial decline followed by strong growth. This is exactly what one expects from a trade pact: an initial setback as industries facing competition for the first time suffer, then an increased in overall economic activity. The chief problem with Mexico is that is lacks liberal tax policies that would spread the wealth generated by its increased trade with the US in a fair and sensible way. As I have posted elsewhere in this thread, I am in favor of these types of tax policies.

The Chinese are seeing living standards rise - but that's because they are making goods for much of the rest of the world and protecting their own markets, ensuring higher-paid jobs exist. YOU try importing a car to China. You'll pay the value of the car in import tarriffs. Surprised?

No, I'm not surprised at all that China is getting rich by trading with the rich world. It's precisely what I claimed would happen. Your point?

Why do you think countries which went down the road of free trade with disastrous results - Argentina is the best example of this - are turning the other way now. Argentina went down the free trade road for the 1990s, and paid for it dearly - the country went broke in 2002 and discovered that its nationals had vast sums of money in foreign bank accounts (like $200 Billion+ here), but their country's industrial infrastructure was a mess and they had spent ten years seeing everything but the living standards of the rich go downhill.

Argentina's problems are the result of corrupt government officials that shuffled billions into the hands of the rich while letting the poor starve. It's failures have nothing to do with free trade.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

232. Corrupted public officials are a feature, not a bug, of globalization.

As for Mexico, a substantial percentage of the GDP is from remittances by immigrants here in the U.S., NOT from what they are generating there. Also GDP is a measure of the value of a country's goods and services. It doesn't tell you a damn thing about how most of the people are living there. Again, you can wish and hope that the rich people there will spread the wealth via tax policy but you cannot make them do it.

[Nederland]

236. Nonsense

Corruption in government has existed as long as government has. It is NOT a product of globalization.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

241. Globalization doen't cause corruption. That is true.

But it's practitioners have not shown themselves to be shy about using that corruption to their advantage. That's why I call it a feature and not a bug.

[Nederland]

246. Disagree

First of all, we are talking about free trade, not globalization. That may seem like a trivial distinction, but let me explain. When government imposes a tariff, it is helping a particular industry at the expense of other industries that do not receive protections. Free trade involves eliminating tariffs, which is a reduction in the power of government and therefore a reduction in the ability of government officials to play favorites. Creating laws and policies that benefit an official's political supporters is a key element in corruption. Free trade therefore, results in a reduction of the tools that corrupt officials have access to.

[PaulaFarrell]

254. Actually you're wrong

The industrial nations, including the USA, developed their industrial base trough protectionism, and only embraced free trade when it was advantageous to do so. Post-war Japan invested heavily in its industries, and India has likewise nurtured its IT industry. Please show me a country which has moved from poor to waelthy withput heavy government subsidies of key industries. In fact, poor countries tend to suffer rather than benefit from free trade - except for the few people at the top of the food chain. See Mexico and the disastrous effects of the US dumping its subsidised corn on the market there.

[Nederland]

257. The key phrase in that post is:

"subsidized corn".

Free trade is all about getting rid of tariffs and subsidies. Thanks for demonstrating my point as to the debilitating effects of government created market distortions to trade.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

278. It was OUR subsidized corn, not Mexico's.

Nice try, though.

[Deja Q]

314. Then how the hell did the US get rich in the first place?

[PaulaFarrell]

252. Dollar an hour?

If only. try 16 cents an hour...

[PufPuf23]

167. There is a two way re-distribution of wealth not one way

As practiced, free trade re-distributes wealth to the poorer in other countries but also redistributes and concentrates wealth in the financial elite; at costs to the middle class and environment. On balance, free trade --again as practiced -- redistributes wealth to the financial elite and booms and busts the very poor that were previously outside the international corporate oligarchy. The proof of the matter in the USA is the changed distribution of income and wealth where each are more skewed to the financial elite than at most times in our nation's history and concurrently the pattern in most modern industrial nations.

[Nederland]

169. You are correct

And that is why it is important to have a progressive tax structure in place (in both countries) that insures that the benefits of increased trade get spread around to the population as a whole.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

172. So how do you get both countries to agree to that?

Considering how they have massive cultural differences, like you said in other posts. I mean, that's why trade deals can't impose labor and environment standards on them, right? How do you compel them to adopt a progressive taxation system?

[Nederland]

184. Wrong

Trade deals can include anything they want in them. NAFTA, for example, does have clauses that address environmental and labor standards. Granted, those requirements are not as stiff as many here in the US would like, but don't say that trade deals don't address labor and environmental standards. They do. For example, this is the preamble from the NAFTA agreement:

The Government of Canada, the Government of the United Mexican States and the Government of
the United States of America, resolved to:
STRENGTHEN the special bonds of friendship and cooperation among their nations;
CONTRIBUTE to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a
catalyst to broader international cooperation;
CREATE an expanded and secure market for the goods and services produced in their
territories;
REDUCE distortions to trade;
ESTABLISH clear and mutually advantageous rules governing their trade;
ENSURE a predictable commercial framework for business planning and investment;
BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade and other multilateral and bilateral instruments of cooperation;
ENHANCE the competitiveness of their firms in global markets;
FOSTER creativity and innovation, and promote trade in goods and services that are the
subject of intellectual property rights;
CREATE new employment opportunities and improve working conditions and living
standards in their respective territories;
UNDERTAKE each of the preceding in a manner consistent with environmental protection
and conservation;
PRESERVE their flexibility to safeguard the public welfare;
PROMOTE sustainable development;
STRENGTHEN the development and enforcement of environmental laws and regulations;
and
PROTECT, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights;

Now I suppose you can argue that NAFTA did too little to enforce those goals, and I would probably agree with you. However, this is the root of the problem: the very groups that could help the most with this problem refuse to sit at the table. Far too often environmental and labor organizations have the same knee jerk anti-trade stance displayed on this board. The result is trade deals that don't reflect their concerns.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

188. Those are mission statements, not actual regulations with teeth.

And as to your contention that environmental and labor organizations are anti-trade, that's absurd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade

Not embracing the corporatist version of trade is not the same as opposing trade in general.

[Nederland]

224. Fair enough

Here are a few actual provisions in the pact that cover environmental concerns:

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/naftatce.asp

Article 904: Basic Rights and Obligations

Right to Take Standards-Related Measures

1. Each Party may, in accordance with this Agreement, adopt, maintain or apply any standards-related measure, including any such measure relating to safety, the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers, and any measure to ensure its enforcement or implementation. Such measures include those to prohibit the importation of a good of another Party or the provision of a service by a service provider of another Party that fails to comply with the applicable requirements of those measures or to complete the Party's approval procedures.

Right to Establish Level of Protection

2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, each Party may, in pursuing its legitimate objectives of safety or the protection of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers, establish the levels of protection that it considers appropriate in accordance with Article 907(2).

Non-Discriminatory Treatment

3. Each Party shall, in respect of its standards-related measures, accord to goods and service providers of another Party:


(a) national treatment in accordance with Article 301 (Market Access) or Article 1202 (Cross-Border Trade in Services); and
(b) treatment no less favorable than that it accords to like goods, or in like circumstances to service providers, of any other country.

Unnecessary Obstacles

4. No Party may prepare, adopt, maintain or apply any standards-related measure with a view to or with the effect of creating an unnecessary obstacle to trade between the Parties. An unnecessary obstacle to trade shall not be deemed to be created where:


(a) the demonstrable purpose of the measure is to achieve a legitimate objective; and
(b) the measure does not operate to exclude goods of another Party that meet that legitimate objective.

Article 905: Use of International Standards

1. Each Party shall use, as a basis for its standards-related measures, relevant international standards or international standards whose completion is imminent, except where such standards would be an ineffective or inappropriate means to fulfill its legitimate objectives, for example because of fundamental climatic, geographical, technological or infrastructural factors, scientific justification or the level of protection that the Party considers appropriate.

2. A Party's standards-related measure that conforms to an international standard shall be presumed to be consistent with Article 904(3) and (4).

3. Nothing in paragraph 1 shall be construed to prevent a Party, in pursuing its legitimate objectives, from adopting, maintaining or applying any standards-related measure that results in a higher level of protection than would be achieved if the measure were based on the relevant international standard.

Article 906: Compatibility and Equivalence

1. Recognizing the crucial role of standards-related measures in achieving legitimate objectives, the Parties shall, in accordance with this Chapter, work jointly to enhance the level of safety and of protection of human, animal and plant life and health, the environment and consumers.

2. Without reducing the level of safety or of protection of human, animal or plant life or health, the environment or consumers, without prejudice to the rights of any Party under this Chapter, and taking into account international standardization activities, the Parties shall, to the greatest extent practicable, make compatible their respective standards-related measures, so as to facilitate trade in a good or service between the Parties.

3. Further to Articles 902 and 905, a Party shall, on request of another Party, seek, through appropriate measures, to promote the compatibility of a specific standard or conformity assessment procedure that is maintained in its territory with the standards or conformity assessment procedures maintained in the territory of the other Party.

4. Each importing Party shall treat a technical regulation adopted or maintained by an exporting Party as equivalent to its own where the exporting Party, in cooperation with the importing Party, demonstrates to the satisfaction of the importing Party that its technical regulation adequately fulfills the importing Party's legitimate objectives.

5. The importing Party shall provide to the exporting Party, on request, its reasons in writing for not treating a technical regulation as equivalent under paragraph 4.

6. Each Party shall, wherever possible, accept the results of a conformity assessment procedure conducted in the territory of another Party, provided that it is satisfied that the procedure offers an assurance, equivalent to that provided by a procedure it conducts or a procedure conducted in its territory the results of which it accepts, that the relevant good or service complies with the applicable technical regulation or standard adopted or maintained in the Party's territory.

7. Prior to accepting the results of a conformity assessment procedure pursuant to paragraph 6, and to enhance confidence in the continued reliability of each other's conformity assessment results, the Parties may consult on such matters as the technical competence of the conformity assessment bodies involved, including verified compliance with relevant international standards through such means as accreditation.

Article 907: Assessment of Risk

1. A Party may, in pursuing its legitimate objectives, conduct an assessment of risk. In conducting an assessment, a Party may take into account, among other factors relating to a good or service:


(a) available scientific evidence or technical information;
(b) intended end uses;

(c) processes or production, operating, inspection, sampling or testing methods; or

(d) environmental conditions.

2. Where pursuant to Article 904(2) a Party establishes a level of protection that it considers appropriate and conducts an assessment of risk, it should avoid arbitrary or unjustifiable distinctions between similar goods or services in the level of protection it considers appropriate, where the distinctions:


(a) result in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against goods or service providers of another Party;
(b) constitute a disguised restriction on trade between the Parties; or

(c) discriminate between similar goods or services for the same use under the same conditions that pose the same level of risk and provide similar benefits.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

228. That says that participating countries MAY adopt standards, not that they must.

Nowhere in there is there a mandate to protect workers or the environment. MAY, not must. And it's clear that the goal of this guideline is more to place restrictions on the standards, not to encourage them.

[Nederland]

231. Indeed it does

Trade pacts are not designed to override the democratic process. If the people of a country want higher standards, they have to vote for them. My point is to debunk those that insist that NAFTA weakens environmental and labor standards. It does not, and as my except shows, it explicitly allows countries to impose environmental standards as they wish. So don't blame NAFTA for lousy environmental standards, blame Congress.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

239. I don't accept the premises buried in your comment.

"If the people of a country want higher standards..." In many of these places the people don't have much of a choice over anything. The practice of "democracy" varies widely throughout the world.

NAFTA doesn't weaken existing environmental and labor standards. No one ever said it did. The problem is that many countries don't have any to speak of and these trade deals allow corporations to shop the planet for the places with the lowest standards.

No one is blaming NAFTA or Congress for lousy environmental standards in other countries. How could we? But it could be said that the rather high tolerance for lax regulations in NAFTA doesn't exactly incentivize those countries to change anything.

[Nederland]

247. Good point

In fact over the years hear I have always argued that free trade pacts should only be made with other democracies. That is why I was in favor of NAFTA but opposed to letting China into the WTO. People in China simply do not have enough political power to insure that the benefits of free trade get spread around evenly.

[LSK]

194. Free Trade is UNREGULATED wealth distribution

Tariffs can be set that allows poor countries to grow while not sacrificing the standards of living in the rich countries. Right now it is a flood of wealth leaving America, why not have it being a slower stream that benefits them and us instead of only them?

[Joe Chi Minh]

203. Only, alas, to the rich in the poor countries. In fact, free trade makes the plight

of the poor worse in those poor countries.

As the late Quaker economist, Ernst Schumacher - so prophetic about minimising the depletion of natural resources - pointed out in his best-seller, Small Is Beautiful, they are encouraged to imitate Western, advanced economic models of capital-intensive industries, instead of promoting labour-intensive industries. And naturally, just like their counterpats in the West, with the money invested in the expensive machinery they then own, automation and the lowest possible compensation of the workforce remain the highest priorities.

Worse, the people starve, while the land is exploited for cash crops for export by big Western corporations at a knockdown price.

Protectionism to protect domestic employment should be a very high priority, wherever possible. Its practicability may not always be obvious, but all sorts of benefits and synergies are created. "Outsourcing" is an unnatural, deeply unpatriotic practice, introduced by deeply unpatriotic people, pretty unfamiliar with the moral dimension to human nature. Charity begins at home, despite the imperative for it to expand beyond our shores. There are ways and there are ways for doing that.

[Nederland]

219. Link?

Give me an example of a poor country made poorer by increased trade.

[Joe Chi Minh]

225. I've given it. Use your intelligence. The people of the UK hadn't been so poor

in a long time as they were under Blair* and now even more with this depresssion under Brown, but according to those NuLab(c), Tory and Lib Dem sociopaths and psychopaths, and their corporate media, the country had never been richer.

We have tens of thousands of people sleeping rough, not to speak of the many, many more who are otherwise homeless. Unheard of in my day. We had tramps, who were homeless voluntarily - I expect mentally disturbed, but homeless people were quite rare. A film called "Cathy Come Home", about a young mother in a shelter caused a national scandal.

You have to understand that, most notably in the US and UK, where they are more empowered recidivists, the right wing in the most developed, Western countries do their worst to impoverish their countries' infrastructure and commerce, to their own enrichment as private individuals. To imagine that the process is not adopted by the poorest countries is madness. The rich, generally, tend not to be patriots - we used to have more of them among the rich in the UK and US - but rather parasites on their country's wealth.

As for a link, I gave you one: Schumacher's book, Small Is Beautiful.

*Although after so long under Thatcherite governments, many of the people were too young to realise it. It was all they knew, and not much less than their parents knew. The unemployment figures are a scandal, the way they have been twisted to include even part-time work. And there are many not included in the unemployment figures on equally bizarre grounds.

[Nederland]

227. Sorry

Still not seeing a link to anything.

[Joe Chi Minh]

230. That's quite all right. It's up there now.

[PaulaFarrell]

256. Going to have to disagree

I have lived in the UK since 1990. As soon as I moved here it went into a recession which took many years to get over. But in the last 5-10 years the increase in wealth has been noticeable. Just look at the greater number of cars on the road, and the size of the cars. My children's teenage friends all seemed to have their own cars, something unthinkable not long ago. You will not see a child without a mobile phone.

Now if you want to argue that the social safety net is a lot poorer than it used to be, I would agree.But not that the populace as a whole is poorer, it's just not borne out by what i see.

[brentspeak]

204. So I take it you'll be offering your job be taken over by some poor foreigner?

What's the matter? Don't you want to redistribute your wealth to another nation?

[Nederland]

221. Yes

I work in IT and have seen many many IT jobs shipped oversees to India. Most directly, the increased competition has resulted in my own income being 40% lower today than it was in 1999. I don't bitch about though, because frankly I was overpaid in 1999 and the rise of India's IT sector is merely the result of free and fair competition. Unlike many on this board, I don't think myself entitled to a higher standard of living simply because I'm white.

[pampango]

229. "I don't think myself entitled to a higher standard of living simply because I'm white."

I love it. DUers will resent your allegation that racism has anything to do with it. The more popular argument here is that it is about patriotism which translates into "I'm entitled to a higher standard of living simply because I'm an AMERICAN, regardless of race."

Any alleviation of poverty in China, India or elsewhere in the Third World (a narrowing of the gap between the rich of the West and the poor of the South which we would extol if it were a narrowing of the income gap domestically in the US) is not deemed to be a goal worthy of any sacrifice on the part of Americans. :)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

242. So have you volunteered to give up your job yet?

You know, so that someone in one of the countries you mentioned will prosper? Are you planning to?

Didn't think so.

Downthread, someone accused us critics of Free Trade of engaging in zero-sum thinking. But really, it's you Flat Earthers who seem to believe that the American middle class MUST decline in order for people elsewhere to get ahead.

BTW, we've 15 years of trade deals and worldwide wealth disparity has WIDENED, not narrowed.

[pampango]

262. Do you always ask questions and then answer them yourself?

I've been in the Peace Corps, did community organizing for a couple of years, worked for the Social Security Administration for 15 years and have been an elementary school teacher for the last 15 years. Never made the "big bucks" but I have no complaints. That's not what I have been after.

Am I willing to give up my job to help people in the Third World? No. Nor am I willing to give up an arm, a leg, or my son for poor people. I am, however, willing to give up some income and my time and effort to help people - in any country - who are not as fortunate as me. I even thought that was one of the fundamental beliefs of liberals. I've seen enough of the Third World to know that I am so much better off than most of the world's population.

I support domestic efforts to lift our very poor out of poverty, even if it costs me some increased taxes, charitable donations or volunteer hours. If I support that, how can I not support development in other countries that lifts poor people out of poverty even if it requires some sacrifice on my part? I have never contended that the American middle class MUST decline in order for other people to get ahead, but neither have I put the welfare of Americans AHEAD of the welfare of humans in other countries.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

265. No you just accused people of being racist for being concerned about American jobs

As if the only people losing their jobs and struggling here are white.

And we're not talking about people giving up *some* income to help poor people elsewhere. People are losing ALL of their income, as in their jobs, to outsourcing and globalization. I'm glad to hear you like to help people out because when those people become unemployed and lose their health benefits, guess who picks up the tab?

[pampango]

268. That was a different poster who made the observation about "being entitled to a

higher standard of living because he/she is white". My response to that was that it is more common here to couch it in terms of protecting the "American" middle class", not the "white" middle class.

I agree that some people are losing all their income. That is the fault of our society for not spreading the wealth more effectively, not providing the social services and health care found in other developed countries. It is not the fault of poor people in the Third World who aspire to our standard of living some day. If Germany can run a high-wage, high-social service economy and be the leading exporter in the world, I see no reason why the US cannot do the same or better. If they can compete successfully with the Chinese and Indians, we should be able to structure our society to do the same, instead of complaining that we can't compete with the poorest people in the world.

If we are not able to reform our own country so that we can compete in an open world and, instead, decide to become a "gated-community" nation that seeks to keep the poor and their problems away from us, then perhaps your wish will have come true.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

276. "I love it. DUers will resent your allegation that racism has anything to do with it."

Your words.

As for anyone blaming poor people in the Third World for the excesses of globalism, no one did so can it with that strawman. Stop hiding behind poor people like Sarah Palin hides behind her kids so that you can sneer at your fellow Americans.

As for your contention that I "wish" to ignore the poor and their problems: Piss off.

[pampango]

282. I stand by my statement that DUers will resent those words. If you think otherwise,

we just disagree.

If you have a different strategy for using international trade to help Third World countries rise out of poverty, I'd be interested to hear it. Perhaps you have not supported the idea of a "gated-community" country. I do tire of hearing from trade opponents that China, India, and other Third World countries should essentially "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" and stop taking advantage of the huge consumer market in the US and the rest of the West.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

285. Still hiding behind the poor people I see, Sarah.

You keep trying to lay this guilt trip on me but I'm not buying it. And the problem with the current strategy of pulling Third World countries up through access to consumer markets in the U.S. is, guess what? There ain't no consumer market here anymore! Whee! People were using credit cards and their houses to buy things and now that can't and probably won't be able to for a long time. See, pampango, that what happens when wages stagnate while inflation doesn't.

Factories in China are full of merchandise that no one is ordering and the ships laden with goods are stuck at the ports. Customer service workers in India are being laid off. It's going to suck for America for the next couple years but it's REALLY going to suck for poorer countries (except maybe China). So maybe if they HAD learned to "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" to use your phrase, instead of relying on American consumers they'd be in a better position, eh?

[pampango]

295. If you believe that the poor should just "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", we differ.

I'm not selling a guilt trip, so I'm glad you're not buying it. Incidentally, I hope you're not selling one either. ;)

You're right. Things are REALLY going to suck for poorer countries. "The US catches a cold, the rest of the world catches pneumonia" is the old expression. Unfortunately, the newer version is "When the US catches pneumonia, the rest of the world goes on life-support." As consumer markets in the West shrink, the poorer countries will have to orient their economies more to domestic consumption. Some of these countries have done quite well in the past 10-15 years, so perhaps they have enough domestic wealth now to sustain such an economy. Others, like most of sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia and Latin America, are still so poor that there is little domestic wealth to sell to.

In a perfect world (not one for Republicans who need lots of domestic help) just as in a perfect country, all people would have equal access to comparable standards of living. We aspire to achieve greater equality within our borders and should do the same outside them as well. Some of the progress towards a fairer society here may indeed need to come from more "bootstrap" work on the part of the poor themselves, but the rest of us have a large role to play too. Much of the concentration of wealth and power has resulted form government policy that needs to be reversed. On an international level, when the average Westerner earns 8 times more than a Chinese worker, 18 times an Indian one, and 25 times a Kenyan worker, there needs to be change.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

298. You can't compare wages between us and other countries like that.

It's apples to oranges. You're talking totally different currency valuations and costs of living. People in Third World countries can scratch out a living on wages that - to borrow a phrase from a fellow DUer - wouldn't keep a hamster alive here. The average American family where the breadwinner makes minimum wage is living in dire poverty (taking into consideration that "poverty is relative" - $6.55 an hour is pretty goddamn poor here) while a Kenyan family can actually survive on that quite well.

You want to achieve greater equality within our borders? How do you propose to do that by throwing millions of Americans out of work and drastically cutting the wages of the rest? As an elementary school teacher, how does your school get funded if you decimate your tax base? Remember them? Those are the people who have been paying property taxes on their ridiculously overvalued homes so that you have a classroom to teach in and get paid to do so. Who do you think is paying into your FICA and Medicare and unemployment insurance right now? Yep, the same people you think should gladly sacrifice some of their pay for the betterment of other countries.

Again, why are you viewing this as some zero-sum game where Westerners MUST be impoverished for others to gain? I thought a rising tide lifted all boats. And it's real ironic how you and Nederland are defending so-called Free Trade agreements that FUCK OVER not just people here, but the poor in other countries.

[pampango]

303. I didn't say it was a zero sum game. You said some others had accused you of that position.

I hope that our standard of living can improve in the future, while that of those in poorer countries could do the same and one day approach the level of people in the West. Of course, there is the issue of the environmental capacity of the earth to handle this level of population and consumption, but with green changes in lifestyles perhaps it will be possible. It is a good goal.

"Poverty is relative" indeed. A family can "survive" on much less in the Third World, but in any objective material sense that "survival" is not comparable to "surviving" while in poverty in the US.

Yes, I want to achieve equality within our borders and outside of them, as well. I would propose that the Obama administration should reverse much of what Bush "accomplished" in creating greater inequality within our borders. Beyond that, Canada, Australia, Japan and many European countries offer examples of how to achieve greater equality for all. What I would not propose is any action that would further impoverish people in poor countries in order to create more wealth for ourselves. (We are already an incredibly wealthy nation. Our problem is the inequitable distribution of this wealth which is not the fault of any other nationality.) Mutually beneficial actions (since this is not a zero sum game) are ideal.

Indeed, urban school districts are having very difficult times, as are most public school districts. I do not enjoy seeing the hardship in most urban areas, particularly recently, both as a human being and as someone whose job quality depends on the economic health of my city. Nor do I enjoy the REALLY bad hardship in poor countries. It is true that they are farther away, I don't know them and they have no direct impact on my life, but they are still there.

We don't have any "free trade" agreements with China, India and most of the rest of the world. They simply belong to GATT/WTO and thereby agree to adhere to the tariff and trading rules that all countries have agreed to. (Even the so-called "free trade" agreements are really "reduced tariff" agreements. Some "smart" politician thought the idea would sell better if it was called "free trade" rather than "reduced tariff".) If you don't believe that the average person in China is better off today than he or she was 15-20 years ago, then you are justified in your position regarding international trade.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

306. Correct, China and India didn't agree to reduced tariffs.

That's why they're doing better than NAFTA and CAFTA nations. That's also a big part of why China has a massive trade surplus with us. China puts up barriers to our goods and services. And I don't blame them for it. That's how you build an economy, by protecting your industries. OTOH, we can't reciprocate here because of greedy corporate fuckwits like Walmart, who won't allow it. Seriously, instead of blaming middle and working class Americans for the problems of the world because the dare to want decent wages and living conditions why don't you put the blame where it really belongs.

"If you don't believe that the average person in China is better off today than he or she was 15-20 years ago, then you are justified in your position regarding international trade."

That's a totally bogus strawman and I can't even believe you tried it with a straight face. Opposition to greedy outsourcers and shams like NAFTA and CAFTA and GATT and WTO and a desire to protect American employment does not equate to an opposition to international trade.

[pampango]

308. I'm not blaming American workers and you're not blaming workers in poor countries.

Can we agree on that? Or do I have to throw the dreaded "strawman" term at you?

When China and India joined the WTO they had to reduce their existing tariffs, but not to the same levels that developed nations. There are higher tariff allowances for poor countries, precisely to help them further their development. It was a concession by the richer countries to get Third World countries to join and abide by a set of trading rules that all countries have agreed to. As China (or any other current Third World country) develops, its allowed tariffs should be continuously adjusted to those that rich countries have to adhere to.

A question: Do you believe that the average person in China is better off today than he or she was 15-20 years ago? Just curious.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

312. I don't know anything about the "average" Chinese person

Nor do I believe that "averages" tell you anything about how individuals are faring in a given situation. If you and I were sitting at a table and Bill Gates sat down with us the "average" income at the table would go up exponentially but neither you nor I would have any more money.

My understanding with China is that you have a similar situation as with the former Soviet Union. Members of old Communist elite have benefitted disproportionately from the new private industries, while the government continues to brutally repress dissent and the sweatshops don't look too enjoyable. http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/en/web/index.php

[pampango]

313. Fair enough.

:hi:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

286. Here, this should make you happy.

Lots of your fellow Americans whom you disdain losing their jobs! Woo hoo! :woohoo:

That'll teach 'em to be so arrogant, huh? Yeah, let 'em eat cake in their gated communities! :sarcasm:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4585677

[pampango]

296. At least we both share a distain for gated communities. As you said in your other post,

"It's going to suck for America for the next couple years but it's REALLY going to suck for poorer countries..." You are right. It does suck in the US and will continue to do so for a good while, and it will REALLY suck for the people in poorer countries.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

299. That's the fault of the American worker, right?

Yep, the Third World is going to be in a world of hurt because of those damn $80 an hour* auto workers and their equally well-compensated counterparts in other industries. At least that's what people like my Senator, Jon Kyl, say. It's disheartening to see people on this board using the same anti-worker rhetoric even if it is under the guise of "concern for the poor in the Third World".

Tell me, are you in a union? What's your position on unions? Just curious.


*http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4580185

[pampango]

305. You're the one who that "things are going to suck here, but REALLY suck in poorer countries".

I was agreeing with your assessment of the situation. I assume you weren't blaming American workers for that, so why should you accuse me of that.

As a teacher, of course I am in a union. I love it, but I doubt that will carry much weight with you. I can live with that.

Tell me, how do you propose deal with poverty in the Third World? Just curious. (And if you really don't care about it, I can live with that, too.)

[mrreowwr_kittty]

307. You know how I think poverty should be dealt with everywhere in the world?

Community organizing. Workers everywhere should have the same right to organize and form contracts just like corporations. The reason I asked you about unions is I'm not sure how aware you are of how many of these countries we are in trade agreements with brutally suppress labor movements. With the tacit and sometimes open approval of corporations. Union-busting is a feature, not a bug, of globalization.

Also, Fair Trade not "Free Trade" for agriculture, which is where much of the world works. http://www.transfairusa.org/content/about/overview.php

Microloans and other forms of credit to encourage entrepreneurship.

This is just a start and there are probably legitimate criticisms of what I'm suggesting and many strategies I'm omitting but the point is that this Milton Friedman bullshit of giving the ultra-wealthy all the power and hoping that they'll do the right thing just ain't working. Never has worked. Never will.

[pampango]

310. Those are all great ideas. I don't have any criticisms of them.

Fair trade products and microloans are two ways that all of us can support Third World development in our daily lives. Community organizing is great (I did it for a couple of years) but can be really difficult under repressive regimes.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

245. Don't just talk. Do it. Give up your job.

I'm sure they can fill it with an eager visa holder.

[Nederland]

248. Oh please

Free trade is about leveling the playing field, not forfeiting the game. There is a difference between me saying that I am willing to compete against foreigners without government protection and saying that I'll commit myself to poverty.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

250. So IOW, you're full of beans. nt

[Nederland]

258. Boy

You really got me there didn't you...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

128. "But if we protect American jobs and industries, I'll have to paaaaaay more for stuff!"

:nopity:

[AndrewP]

129. Well said

[hogwyld]

2. Yeah, how dare the rest of the world

want a better standard of living! As much as I'd like to protect our jobs, it just won't work in todays world.

[LuckyTheDog]

7. They can have a higher standard of living

China, for example, has the natural resources and population to have a booming economy entirely within its own borders.

[Deja Q]

10. Bingo.

[wuushew]

23. I dispute your opinion that China is not short of many many resources

especially energy. Do you think that commodity prices are rising for no reason? China has a decent amount of coal but given what we know of global warming the exploitation of those resources seems dangerous. Nixon should have stayed the hell out of China and come back in 200 or 300 years at which time we could trade high tech green energy products against China's cheaper cost of labor.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. China has very few natural resources actually

Labor is the only resource that they have a large supply of. Their development is almost entirely reliant on trade with the outside world.

[LuckyTheDog]

216. That labor...

... would be put to better use producing goods and services aimed at making the lives of their countrymen better. China's best path to development is the same as for any country: Good wages and production for domestic consumption.

[Hippo_Tron]

274. You can't grow at 9-10% per year if you don't have export markets

They do produce plenty of products for domestic consumption but there isn't enough domestic demand to buy up everything that they produce.

[LuckyTheDog]

280. They could boost domestic demand...

...by raising wages across the board. They have a slave-labor economy. They need to change that.

[Hippo_Tron]

297. The Chinese people aren't going to suddenly start living western lifestyles

If they enact a higher minimum wage. They have lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter period of time than any other country in history. And wages are going up in China. They still do have cheap labor in many instances because unfortunately conditions in the rural areas are so desperate that people will take any job in the city.

But China's economic growth depends on its ability to sell goods to people who have the money to buy substantial amounts of consumer goods and those people are in North America and Europe. There is no possible way for them to have the economic growth that they do without trade.

[Nederland]

222. The why doesn't it?

Why doesn't China stop trading with the rest of the world?

[Fumesucker]

8. There are countries in the world that have a *higher* standard of living than the US..

And most of them export more to us than we to them.

[Hippo_Tron]

76. The US has by far the highest GDP per capita in the world

And generally people define standard of living in GDP per capita terms. But if you want to make an argument that other countries have a better standard of living because they distribute their wealth better, I would be interested to hear it.

[FormerDittoHead]

117. "by far the highest"? I'd check those stats. USA is #10

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

I think I still prefer living here, however, your point about distribution of GDP is also important, not to mention the general cost of living e.g.: medical insurance and prescriptions.

[Hippo_Tron]

275. I learn something new every day I guess

Most of those countries above the United States are very small and many are very rich in natural resources (oil). Comparably our GDP per capita is higher than the rest of the large economies.

[aquart]

11. So you'll let Americans starve to protect cheap labor in China?

Hey, go for that bread line.

[Deja Q]

13. Well, you see, it's every American except himself.

If he's going to be so callous about his countrymen, he'd let his relatives starve too.

[hendo]

26. you'd let the Chinese starve? nt

[Hippo_Tron]

79. There is very little actual starvation in America, there is hunger

And there is far too much hunger in a country as rich as ours. But there is a difference between the two. Some people in China face the possibility of starvation. Those who live in the cities and work in factories generally don't. But those who live in the countryside or are nomadic and trying to find a city where they can get a job do face the possibility of starvation.

So it is a valid question as to why we should value the welfare of American people over the survival of Chinese people.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

135. It's a valid question but free trade pacts, as they exist now, are not the answer. nt

[hogwyld]

148. I know if I was starving

not hungry, but actually on the verge of starvation, I'd work for less than the prevailing wage to feed my family. But I guess 5 billion people don't count because they weren't smart enough to be born here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

212. "I'd work for less than the prevailing wage to feed my family"

That's the whole point of "free trade". To make sure there are ALWAYS people on the brink of starvation who will work for whatever they can get.

Put another way, if these trade deals are so successful, then why hasn't worldwide income disparity and poverty gone down? It's gone up.

[closeupready]

220. Why should we value ourselves over other people? Are you insane or what?

What kind of a question is that?

[Nederland]

122. Americans aren't starving

In fact, most of us are overweight.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

131. Gee, that comment sounds familiar.

I believe it was Phil Gramm who said something like that.

Here's a clue for you: You can be overweight and under-nourished. In fact, many poor Americans are. The kind of cheap, filling crap that is all most of them can afford is not very nutritious. They don't usually have the time and money to join gyms either.

And before you even start with some patronizing lecture about what poor people in America could or should do: Fuck off.

[LSK]

196. you want to explain that to the homeless man who I gave $5 last week

And this was in the SUBURBS.

[Deja Q]

315. Due to excessive sedentary conditions, bad eating choices, or both.

Please stop voluntarily supergluing your eyes shut, there's a good fellow.

[Quantess]

152. I wouldn't stand in that bread line.

There's melamine in that bread!

[treestar]

154. Americans don't starve

This is the richest nation in the world. Americans buy the stuff from China because it costs less. What are they buying it with if they are starving?

Just because someone gets laid off in the US, does not mean they will never ever get another job. In fact they will, and they will be paid more, and live better, than most in China.

It is simply not that black and white. The CEOs would not move the factory to China if, as a result, the US customers couldn't buy anything made there. What would be the point?

The economy is much larger and more diverse than that.

[Cassius23]

208. Actually, they would and do...

More to the point, Dell doesn't care if you can't buy a Ford, and Ford doesn't care if you can't buy Dell. The effect is cumulative.

[hendo]

25. That is correct sir. nt

[RB TexLa]

53. If they wanted that, they should have had enough sense to have been born in the "Good Ole U S of A"

Didn't you read the declaration of independence? It says that "all men, in America that is, are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ..."

Don't be silly, those foreigners aren't equal to Americans, and showing any kind of concern for them is treason, at least according to our left leaning Birchers here.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

141. And showing any concern for the American middle class

Is high treason, according to the Flat Earth Corporate Koolaid Drinker society on DU.

Guess what? The middle class is the sole reason for the creation of liberal democracies. The Founding Fathers were middle class. The middle class is responsible the vast majority of art, literature, philosophy, and scientific and technological advances. Say goodbye to the middle class, say goodbye to all of that.

[Zhade]

98. Um. You've really never heard of the abuses NAFTA creates through lack of worker protections?

You know, like locking workers in their factories and paying them fifty cents a day?

Are you that misinformed?

[Nederland]

123. NAFTA does not "create" those situations

Lack of worker protections are created through lack of worker protections. Don't blame free trade on working conditions.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

133. Bullshit.

"Free trade" enables companies to scour the globe looking for people who will work the cheapest and forego safety and decent conditions. Furthermore, labor advocates have been SCREAMING for worker and environmental protections to be part of these trade deals all along. Only to be ignored by the apologists who insist that corporations will do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.

[hogwyld]

146. So only those countries that have an established

set of labor laws should be allowed to employ people to work? I'm sure the 4+ billion other people on the planet are grateful for your sincerity in allowing them to get off their farm to strive for a better life. Oh wait...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

149. YES!!

Because...oh I don't know...maybe if countries had to have labor and environmental laws to get companies to invest in them they'd...oh I don't know...maybe PASS LABOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS!!

Gee, what IS your problem with treating workers decently and protecting the enviroment?

[hogwyld]

150. Are you honestly so naive to believe every other country

respects the rule of law as we do here? Big cultural differences out there, and hate to tell you, but liberal democracies are really rare in the third world. We weren't exactly brimming with organized labor during our industrial revolution, but it caught on. Other countries will probably have to go the same path.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

155. No more naive than the proponents of "free trade" are

When they believe the well-paid economists who promise them that these trade deals benefit everyone.

The problem with your theory that other countries will follow the same path we did with respect to organizing labor, is that multi-national corporations have become very adept at getting local governments to crush nascent labor movements. And because the trade deals have no worker protections there's nothing to restrict them from doing that.

[Nederland]

162. Labor and Environmental standards differ

I'm sure you find it very comfortable to sit in your heated and/or cooled living space and debate the merits of a 10 ppb arsenic standard versus a 50 ppb arsenic standard, but not everyone in the world has that luxury. Before they can afford those sorts of high environmental standards they have to have an economy that generates enough wealth to enforce and create them. That means jobs making stuff to sell to all us rich folks.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

171. "us rich folks"?

See, the thing about that is, Nederland, "us rich folks" have to have the money to buy that stuff. When our wages decline or we lose our jobs, and then we can't even use our credit cards and home equity to buy the stuff, then the people in the other countries making the stuff don't have people who can buy the stuff. Ain't it funny how it works that way?

[Nederland]

226. Typical American

Thinks that poverty is not being able to buy "stuff". You do realize that in other parts of the world people are struggling to buy food for their families, not "stuff"?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

243. Nederland: "That means jobs making stuff to sell to all us rich folks"

Nederland: "Thinks that poverty is not being able to buy "stuff". You do realize that in other parts of the world people are struggling to buy food for their families, not "stuff"?"

:wtf: Make up your mind, dude. Either making and selling stuff is bad or it's not. The OP and this entire thread is about Free Trade, which is all about "stuff" being made and sold.

Again, and I'll say it s-l-o-w-l-y this time: If people in other parts in the world are hoping to buy food for their families by making "stuff" to be sold, then other people need to be able to buy the stuff!!

[Nederland]

249. Obviously

And with the trade deficit between the US and China standing at close to 200 billion dollars, I see little evidence that the US is incapable of buying "stuff".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

251. So it is good then. Glad to hear it b/c that guilt trip you were trying was pretty annoying

BTW, ships laden with Chinese-made goods are sitting at the ports. Most of the "stuff" that's been bought the past few years has been bought with consumer credit and home equity. Which is now nonexistent for the most part. See, that's what happens when wages stagnate and decline. Oh but I read upthread that you are glad for your 40% pay cut because you were making "too much" before.

[Nederland]

260. That's America for you

We have a God given right to buy all the stuff we want, and by golly, if our wages decline were going to stick out heads in the sand, pretend everything's ok and borrow the difference.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

263. I see that you are now shifting your focus

You've gone from being an apoligist for Free Trade to trashing America. Okay, fine, we're fer sure a highly imperfect union here and certainly some of our cultural traditions and consumption habits suck. But those are the very things that the current global trade model relies upon. Isn't it ironic, Alanis?

[Nederland]

281. Not at all

My focus the entire time has been on the fact that Americans seem to think they are entitled. Entitled to higher wages than the rest of the world, entitled to consume more than they earn. It is that sense of entitlement that leads people to oppose free trade.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

284. Nederland: "Americans seem to think they are entitled."

For that crime, we deserve to be wiped out, I guess.

[Nederland]

287. Not wiped out, just knocked down a peg or two

The fantasy world we've been living in won't last much longer.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

290. And yet you want to see a better social safety net here

How, pray tell, do you accomplish that without a decent tax base? You want to cut American wages, perhaps by as much as 40% as yours (allegedly) were, and yet somehow you think you'll be able to tax enough out of those lowered wages to provide things like universal health care, improved education, infrastructure, etc. Unreal. :eyes:

[Nederland]

291. Reponse

All of those things are easily accomplished provided you are willing to accept a drastically lower standard of living.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

292. You go first. nt

[Nederland]

293. You just don't get it

It's not a choice, and we're all going down together.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

294. Yep.

Say, what's your position on unions?

Just curious.

[Nederland]

304. Unions

Unions are a necessary counterweight to corporate power. I'm not naive enough to believe that they aren't incorruptible though.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

288. Here are some more entitled Americans losing their jobs

That'll teach 'em to be so entitled. Maybe now they'll support free trade. :sarcasm:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4585677

[corpseratemedia]

264. deleted message

[olegramps]

209. You are naive and uninformed.

Corporations don't have a heart or a soul. Their sole, pun intended, function is to get something produced for the lowest cost and markit it for the highest profit.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

132. Okay, you go first then.

Give your job up and then come back and tell us how we need to sacrifice for the betterment of the world.

[hogwyld]

145. I work in an industry that actually exports

to the rest of the world. If we throw up tariffs, what makes you think the rest of the world wouldn't do the same?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

147. That horse has already left the barn.

Other countries DO have tariffs on American goods. Ever checked the price of an American car in Japan? It's nearly double what it is here, mostly due to import fees. Why, I bet if you looked into it you'd find that at least some of the countries you export product to impose a tariff on it.

[pampango]

174. Other countries have tariffs and so do we. "Free" trade is a misnomer. Laws and treaties

are given fancy names to make them sound appealing. Apparently politicians choose titles that they think will make laws and treaties more palatable. "Free" trade really means reduced tariff trade.

We are the third biggest exporter in the world after Germany and China (who passed us last year), so someone is buying our stuff out there. All countries (153 at present) who trade internationally belong to the WTO/GATT, except for North Korea, Somalia, Kazakhstan, Syria, the Vatican and Eritrea. They agree to a set of rules that control tariffs, quotas and other trade regulations. No one forces a country to join, any more than a country is forced to join the UN or sign the Kyoto Treaty.

If a country doesn't like the rules of the UN, Kyoto, or GATT, they can seek to renegotiate them or withdraw (or not join in the first place) and go it alone in the world. I submit that if one wants all countries to have higher tariffs, that we should renegotiate international trading rules rather than doing the "lone cowboy" (Bush) thing.

[treestar]

153. The more jobs there are, the more jobs are developed

Why people insist this is a zero sum game I will never know.

When the Chinese and Indians, the most populous nations on earth, have jobs, then they can afford to buy stuff.

There will be something we can sell them. Which we couldn't before, meaning those entities selling to them now did not even exist before.

People in the US middle class seem to think that a bad thing, like we can't live a comfortable lifestyle unless the third world stays poor. Then they thing we're supposed to get sympathy for that. The third world is supposed to say, Oh, poor US, we'll stop striving to make our lives better so that you can keep living way better than we do.

It'd be like turning down a raise, because if I don't, my poor boss the corporate CEO wouldn't have as much money to spend on things I can't afford to begin with.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

180. Strawman.

No one is saying that the third world must stay poor. Rising incomes everywhere would enrich everyone. But free trade deals are not about raising everyone's standard of living. They are about allowing corporations to engage in labor arbitrage. It's a one-way deal for workers in every country. Corporations can freely cross borders. People can't.

[brentspeak]

206. Have you considered suggesting to your boss that your job be outsourced?

Or that some imported worker replace you? If not, why not?

Don't tell me you don't want the rest of the world to have a better standard of living!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

214. Oh I'm sure he's irreplacable at whatever it is he does.

It's the rest of us worthless loafers who need to give up our jobs.

[ret5hd]

3. How did such wrongheaded thinking get to the right conclusion???

[BrklynLiberal]

5. re-think the whole thing. Free trade is not ruining only our economy, but others as well.

[eridani]

74. Indeed. It only benefits the people at the top all over the world

And the race to the bottom screws everyone else.

[Azlady]

96. You got that!

[fascisthunter]

6. I Couldn't Believe the Spin

that came from so many guests in the media. Most people understand that cutting one's nose off to spite of one's face is never a good thing to do. Outsourcing jobs from your own country hurts your economy....

[The2ndWheel]

Re-think thousands of years of history and momentum?

If it stops, it won't be voluntarily.

[PDJane]

9. The last thing the US uses is boy-scout rules.

In fact, the job losses in the US are the inevitable result of US and corporate policies that exploit the third world for everything from resources to human labour.

In essence, the US has been engaging in slavery of one sort or another from its inception, and continues to do so.

[Deja Q]

16. And yet we see more H1Bs and countries saying they are pulling their people out of poverty.

China alone has pulled more than 1/3rd its populace out of poverty - not a bad thing, obviously!!

I don't completely buy the "slavery" argument -- that is NOT to say sweatshops and the ilk don't exist, but I don't buy into one-sided ideology either. There's usually a context, and there are times despite all that I will do the one-sided routine too.

[PDJane]

110. The context is the use of resources

and the flood of capital looking for a higher return. Free trade only works when the playing field is even; when wages and regulations that protect the worker, the consumer and the environment are in place.

The only thing that has allowed the "Chinese miracle" is totalitarianism; communism is the driving force there, and the corporations love it. The environment and the people are suffering, in spite of the company line.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

136. How many sweatshops are acceptable to you?

How many? What quantity of human misery do you believe to be a tolerable casualty rate in order for the engines of "free trade" to hum?

[Deja Q]

316. You tell me.

All I know is, at least for Information Technology jobs, nobody is forcing them to do that work at gunpoint and their countries are prospering because of it. Lower cost of living also translates to lower wages.

It's all relative; their $10/hr is heaven while we can't even live off of it.

Rescind stupid policies that give tax breaks to companies that offshore.

Add a tariff.

Make the monetary field equal.

[LuckyTheDog]

18. What I mean is this

Other countries are not as committed to opening their economies as we are. For years, the Japanese sold cars very freely here, while GM, Ford and Chrysler could not get past Japan's trade barriers to sell cars there. The same thing happens now: free trade usually means easy access to U.S. markets for foreigners and lesser access to foreign markets for U.S. goods.

I agree that this is the "inevitable result of U.S. and corporate policies." But those policies are short-sighted and don't serve us -- or the Third World -- very well.

Folks in China should be producing goods and services for their own domestic consumption -- not primarily for export. And the workers should be paid enough to afford a decent level of consumption, which would create more jobs, allow others to consume goods and services, etc.

Strong economies are built with good wages and production that stays in the economy to benefit those who work in it.

[Deja Q]

21. Bingo.

Especially your final sentence.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Ever hear of agriculture subsidies?

Our trade practices aren't exactly fair either.

[StreetKnowledge]

192. I completely agree

Which why I have no issue with the free movement of capital, but I do have an issue with free trade.

[taught_me_patience]

12. Much of what I've read and learned

suggests that free trade has been good for the economy. It's been bad for people who work in manufacturing but good for people who work in services. Overall, a net gain. Also, I have no doubt that free trade has made America more competitive in the global economy.


on edit: I have a undergrad in Economics and am currently pursuing an MBA.

[fascisthunter]

17. "...free trade has made America more competitive in the global economy."

wuh???? What the Hell Have You Been Reading? America is more competetive due to free trade?

How so? And what PART of America are you talking about? The upperclass???? Oh, I'm sure all the rich pampered jerks are doing just fine, while the rest of us scrape by from one pay check to the next. God damn the bullshit people post here. UNFUCKING REAL!

[taught_me_patience]

60. Free trade creates more competition

and more competition fosters more innovation, which American companies are known for. Innovation is the true strength of the American economy. I believe that we have the most innovative companies in the world. Thus, I believe that free trade helps American companies innovate and become stronger.

[Elwood P Dowd]

93. Free Trade as practiced today creates wealth for the CEOs/rich investors, and poverty for

the workers. Innovation is actually leaving this country along with middle class wages. We are now in a debt-based consumption economy that is going bankrupt thanks to policies YOU support.

[Azlady]

103. we have the innovation here, we design it then shipped out of the

country, we need to keep our innovations here and BUILD them here, THEN sell them to the world

[taught_me_patience]

165. If it were profitable to do that, then companies would be doing it!

However, in many cases, it is not profitable to manufacture in America and sell to the rest of the world.

[closeupready]

223. It's not profitable because the people at the top aren't happy with 10x their lowest paid worker

which is what the ratio is in Japan and used to be in the US. Now the income disparity is like 250:1. THAT is why companies don't do that in the US anymore.

[Greyhound]

127. Nice theory, too bad it has no bearing on reality. The web of trade agreements only benefit

international corporations and they, in turn, collude rather than compete and in that collusion, crush innovation. Further, any small operators that do come along with a new idea are doomed to fail by the very market control that the colluding giants gained as a result of the trade agreement in the first place.

The whole fabrication of "free" trade was developed from it's inception exclusively for the benefit of the corporations that wrote the legislation.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

140. And if you're not an inventor, innovator, or entrepreneur, you can fuck off and die.

Right? People who aren't "competitive" enough need to be culled from the herd, I guess.

[taught_me_patience]

164. I'm talking about companies

if a company is not innovative enough, it will die.

[StreetKnowledge]

187. Or if it won't go down the race to the bottom.

Why do you think China, which in a couple decades is going to be America's biggest military threat (it's already becoming one) gathers hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investment in a year from American companies? Because they make cheap junk there and sell it here for cheap prices, hence also destroying those who choose to make products in America. Two birds with one stone.

[fascisthunter]

170. NOPE... that's a Lie. That Theory has been evicerated

by today's global economic situation. Your "free-market theory"(more like monopolies unfettered by any and all rules to take advantage of slave labor-like wages) has crippled our economy and is destroying the middleclass, the very folks who once bought goods. It's destroyed our economy!

There is no competition left... that's a lie as well.

[StreetKnowledge]

185. Brainwashed.

I'm not blaming ou for that, it's what you are taught, but free trade deals as they exist now ALWAYS end up fucking over the Middle classes of the wealthy nations, because now the companies want to make more cash having workers make stuff for a buck an hour, if that much. Innovation is going away too, thanks to the fact that fewer people can go to college and innovation is dying because companies aren't choosing to innovate in America any more. They'd rather pay an engineer in China or India what a kid flipping burgers in America makes.

[bulloney]

195. That's how it works in your Econ 101 book. But theory and models are one thing. Reality is another

In the real world, these agreements called "free trade" are means for multi-national corporations to exploit differences in nations' labor costs, environmental standards, currency values and other means.

Capital and technology are transferred worldwide more easily than ever. When a corporation can find a cheaper country to produce, it will do so in a heartbeat.

[BobRossi]

20. How many of those hamburger flippers are buying new Fords?

The American auto worker built America's midle class. Service industries are not self perpetuating.
Look at the richest countries in the world, they either are rich in natural recources or are manufacurers.

[taught_me_patience]

56. Service jobs don't just mean hamburger flippers

It includes doctors, lawyers, management, financiers, sales, etc. There are many high paying "service" jobs.

[dflprincess]

65. And those high paying service jobs are so easy to come by

provided you can afford college and grad school. Not to mention having the brains to get into college - unless Yale will let you in as a legacy.

[Hippo_Tron]

101. Wouldn't be a problem if we had a better education system and made college more affordable

[mrreowwr_kittty]

137. For what? Jobs that no longer exist?

Seriously, I believe in the value of education on its own merits but what you're saying is the argument we've been hearing for years from the free-traders. "Oh, don't worry about those manufacturing and tech jobs going away - You can go back to school and get retrained!" Yeah right.

[Hippo_Tron]

143. Not that simple I agree

Retraining works in some cases and in other cases it doesn't. Under Bush and the Republicans, it has been drastically underfunded. But if in a generation from now we have a system where everybody who wants to go to college can afford it, there will be significantly less need for manufacturing jobs.

[StreetKnowledge]

182. WRONG.

You see, not everyone goes to college, or has the brains (or finances) to go. There will always be people who want to go to college but cannot afford it. Welcome to the real world, man. There will always be a need for manufacturing jobs, and in substantial quantities to help the many millions of Americans who are, for whatever reason, not able to get a higher education.

[Hippo_Tron]

190. I did not say that everyone would be able to go to college

I said that we can create a system where everybody with the capability can afford to go to college. And I didn't not say that there would be no need for manufacturing jobs. I said that there would be less need for manufacturing jobs.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

139. Doctor and attorney are PROFESSIONS

They require a massive education commitment. Sales and finance are extremely competitive and while a few people are wildly successful, most people who try those careers fail.

That leaves management, which is full of "brilliant" MBAs who make fantastic strategic decisions that run companies into the ground.

[Deja Q]

317. And yet actors, disc jockeys, and people who run around with or hit balls across a field make more!

And none of them requires any of these educational commitments.


Also, how does one define value in something? What defines good pay?

[Deja Q]

22. Remind me not to use you to manage my finances.

In some ways, it's helped.

Looking at the number of store closings and more Americans losing work, it's hurting too.

We need a balance restored. Not isolationism. Not hindrances. Just making things just again. To give tax breaks to companies THAT offshore is ludicrous and has exacerbated this problem too.

[taught_me_patience]

55. Agree

giving tax breaks to companies that offshore jobs is not free trade. That is just stupid.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

142. I've concluded that the MBA is the most worthless degree there is.

All they seem to learn is how to fuck people over, while making it look reasonable via pretty charts and flowery management lingo.

[taught_me_patience]

178. Ignorance is bliss, I guess

but, please, keep believing your pre-conceived notions and generalities, which are completely false.

An MBA from a top instituion has a very good ROI
Most MBAs that I know (and I know many because I'm currently in a program) don't fuck other's over
Most MBAs that I know are very talented people
Commiting 2-3 years and 100k to an education (after usually being quite successful in your career) takes a lot of courage and should actually be commended.

Of course, there are good and bad mbas, but your generalizations are completely off base.

[StreetKnowledge]

181. This is entirely true

But the current generation of MBAs - and my fiance is one - are taught to raise profits at all costs. Profit is all that matters, not anything else. My fiance thinks that pretty sad, but most of the people she got that MBA with don't care, as long as it isn't them getting laid off. That's what is becoming these days - "I don't care about anybody else, I want more for ME!" That's the concern of our times - the hell with everyone else, what's in it for me?

[taught_me_patience]

193. True

I blame it more on what our society has become. Companies have become much too focused on short term profits at the expense of long term innovation and sustainability. However, this is because it's what the shareholders demand! And, as an employee, it's usually in your self interest to "tow the company line" in order to advance your own career. Anybody would do that. Selfishness not limited to mbas.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

186. Sorry, I know this is anecdotal but

Pretty much every MBA I've ever had the misfortune to work for has been an insufferable ass whose contributons to the organization tended to be goofy "team-building" activities and administering pop-psych personality tests to employees.

[olegramps]

211. Yeah, the MBAs are real smart, Like Bush

[Elwood P Dowd]

30. What you've read and learned is absolute brainwashing

that's been prevalent in our universities the past 2-3 decades. Econ professors have orgasms at just the mention of the word "Free Trade". Looks great on paper, yet in the real world it only benefits a few at the top because the corporations and their investors bought the politicians who negotiated the fucking trade deals.

[taught_me_patience]

57. Econ professors like free trade. -Agreed

However, they spend their lives studying these things, and most believe that free-trade is good. I would tend to believe them, as they are smarter than I am on the subject. I agree with them from what I've read.

[Elwood P Dowd]

58. Your profs don't even read the agreements.

You are being taught by idiots, and you believe them.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. That's a pretty anti-intellectual broad brush right there

How do you know that they don't read the agreements?

[Elwood P Dowd]

64. Because I purchased the NAFTA and GATT agreements from the US Printing Office

in 1993 and 1994. I couldn't get any of the economics professors to even read them. Years later, my nephew asked his international trade professor if he had read the agreements. The answer was NO! Hardly any members of Congress read the agreements.

NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, etc. are not fucking free trade. They are scams.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Again, that's a pretty broad brush based on your personal experience

[Elwood P Dowd]

75. I have NEVER met anyone who has read those agreements.

Thom Hartmann said the exact same thing on one of his shows, as have several others. The results of these agreements are disastrous for working people, and one of the reasons is because almost no one read the damn things. They were given short little talking points memos of a few pages and actually believed that shit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

279. I did, and the side agreements

but I am the exception, not the rule

These days you can even find them online, where I read them...

Over the course of days.

Oh and I agree with you... most folks have not read them

And the side agreements are even more of a joke

They were negotiating to allay the concerns of the "angry left" and if they ever were enforced they would have improved those treaties... but there was never any intention to enforce them.

Piece of trivia... according to the NAFTA you and me could travel to oh Canada as long as there was a job, and Ernesto could come legally to the States... and Frank in Otawa can go down to Mexico City... tell me, when was the last time that was actually done?

I wish an immigration lawyer or two read it by the by... and realized that all this immigration bullshit is just bullshit, per those agreements, to be exact.

[taught_me_patience]

63. They spend their lives studying these things

I'd hardly call them "idiots".

[Elwood P Dowd]

66. They spend their lives pushing the corporate propaganda to people like you.

Some of these clowns make more money on the side from the corporate financed trade organizations than they do working for their university. Some are simply as brainwashed as you. These fake free trade deals are a total disaster for working people. David Ricardo is rolling over in his grave.

[pampango]

111. Every economics/business professor is a "clown" or "brainwashed"? Does everyone who disagrees with

you fall into one of those categories or the other? Do these categories also apply to math/science/engineering professors? Good thing you're not "anti-intellectual" or anything.

If we are going to trade with the rest of the world, there have to be rules that all countries agree to follow. If the US doesn't like the current GATT rules (which are mutually agreed upon rules regulating tariffs and quotas, not "free trade" like NAFTA), we should renegotiate them so that they are more acceptable rather than going "lone cowboy" (like Bush) and building up walls around the country so that we can ignore the rest of the world.

[bulloney]

202. I've debated some of the biggest free trade economists in the country.

Collectively, they have no common sense.

They look at their economic models and really believe that they work the way they're drawn up.

They think the economy operates in a vacuum, where corporations will not use their money or power to influence policy to tilt the markets to their advantage. Capitalism and the free market ideology are by their nature, cannibalistic. The big fish in markets are always swallowing the small fish to where you have a monopoly or oligopoly, to a point where competition no longer exists. You have collusion and other uncompetitive practices. Competition is the catalyst for a real free market economy. Without it, you have no free markets. But some people, including many economists, think "free market" is merely the removal of tariffs and totally ignore competition's role in markets.

[OnionPatch]

47. Boy, I celebrate the day I traded my factory job for that "service" job.

Especially since it only pays half as much, with half the benefits. :eyes:

Actually, I went into an IT job when my factory job went away. Guess what...the IT job went overseas, too. What should I train for now? Maybe I really will end up with that wonderful "service" job after all.

[Zhade]

100. Stop hitting Thomas Friedman's crack pipe.

NT!

[HughBeaumont]

112. I see the Chi-School bullshit is alive and well in lower-level Econ.

Read The Great Risk Shift by Jacob Hacker and look up the part about Martin Feldstein. Read The Myths of Free Trade by Sherrod Brown. Read The Shock Doctrine and how Big Business interests in the late 60s - early 70s (backed by the CIA) more or less FORCED Chile from a balanced developmental economy into a Friedman wet dream, installed a dictatorship, brainwashed their students and gutted social services.

Surely your professors should have glossed over the fact that lower-taxed, free-trade-happy, wealth-concentrated-at-the-top, kowtow-to-the-rich-based economies lead to nothing but quick booms, bubbles and inevitable crashes . . . like we saw in the late 20s and like we're seeing over and over and over again for the last 3 decades? Human behavior is as predictable as gravity; can you honestly tell me with a straight face that giving every advantage to the wealthy has ever or will ever result in them being benevolent with it? Incomes of the wealthy have increased anywhere from 29 to 1000 percent while the average worker makes, in real dollars, the same income he/she did in 1973 (this same condition was prevalent in the Great Depression as well).

Our corporations (and classrooms) have been overrun by Friedmanite bean-counters who refuse to veer from this predatory plan that has failed the overall economy for that same amount of time (you know, unless you happen to be well-monied . .. then it works out just fine).

FAIR trade would include labor protections and safety regulations for foreign workers, something that doesn't exist under the unbridled capitalist model now. FAIR trade would include corporate regulations of some sort and eliminate corporate personhood. FAIR trade would have to include a better plan for re-entering displaced workers into equivalent wages at equivalent careers. Maybe FAIR trade should also include provisos that no worker should have to fend for their damned selves when they're axed through no fault or choice of their own, but because they simply weren't cheap enough.

All free trade does is plunge the middle/working/poor classes of ALL nations to the bottom of the well, especially ours. It doesn't build wealth, it encourages exploitation and creates more poverty. Indian wages have risen, leaving corporations to look for even cheaper nations. Even with the wage increase, it isn't like China and India live in astounding conditions. Their infrastructure and pollution problems still exist, as does the overcrowding and outdated utilities.

A strong economy is supposed to accommodate EVERYBODY at a liveable wage, not just the heavily degreed and privileged.

Free trade is a moldy bill of Reaganite goods that benefits the CAPITAL of the country, not the labor. Retraining is a crock when you don't even know what you're re-training for, nor do you know that the career you choose isn't going to follow it's predecessor offshore or be subject to the wage-ravaging phenomenon spawned from . .. er. . . "competitiveness".

This doesn't work. Textbooks will never tell you what your eyes can. It does. NOT. WORK. Not then and not now.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/15

[mrreowwr_kittty]

138. Like Thom Hartmann said yesterday: Service Economy is an oxymoron

Burger flippers and manicurists do not a strong economy make.

No offense, but I'll take the word of Thom Hartmann over an MBA any day of the week.

[LSK]

199. no wonder the financial markets are crashing

They let complete idiots teach economics and hand out MBAs. We are so screwed!!!

PS: You might want to go back to that part about value adding to materials creating wealth.

[taught_me_patience]

207. Anti-intellectualism is getting thick here

You're calling people, who you don't know, who have devoted their lives to the study of economics at the finest institutions around the country "idiots".

I've got nothing more to say on this topic.

[LSK]

210. If they are teaching that Free Trade is good for us

Then yes I am calling them idiots. Plus they say a service economy is ok? Doesn't matter if we lose manufacturing base??? Doesn't matter that workers go from a $20+/hour factory job to $5/hour Walmart job?

Well in order to spare your feelings I will just go back to the Krugman blog and leave you alone.

Carry on destroying the financial markets.

[HughBeaumont]

234. One could argue that the Laffer Curve and Eugenics took a lot of time to think up.

Doesn't mean that they're correct.

The Friedman brand of economics has tried and failed almost constantly everywhere it's been tried. Unless you're well monied and don't care about the plight of others, it's been a train-wreck failure. Environments have suffered, as have the wages of the middle/working/poor classes. History is on our side on this issue.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

300. Good. Because all you have left at this point is Appeal to Authority arguments. nt

[BobRossi]

14. Any dolt that ever believed in it should have their head examined.

Free Trade = Slave Labor.
The countries that make products for consumption in the US don't consume those same products.

The Big Three are reaping the rewards of their ill conceived plan. For every American auto worker that loses their job the Big Three lose 2-3 car sales.
How many Mexican workers making 50 cents/hour are buying new Fords?

[hendo]

29. The american version of that ford

or the mexican version? In many cases the american version has worse fuel efficiency.

[conspirator]

15. You don't have to believe. "Free trade" and globalization are IMPOSED

by the elite to crush the middle class

[Elwood P Dowd]

19. None of our trade deals should be called "Free Trade".

It's not Free Trade when we give our trading partners 15 years to lower their tariffs, and we lower ours almost immediately. It's not free trade when our trading partners charge a Value Added Tax (VAT) of up to 30% on our exports, yet we have not VAT on their products. It's not Free Trade when we ship capital and labor out of the USA just to take advantage of slave wages, lax environmental laws, non-existent product safety laws, and zero labor protections.

Our so called "Free Trade" deals are nothing more than outsourcing/investment scams written to benefit wealthy CEOs and Wall Street investors. It's also a race to the bottom for workers. If David Ricardo, the father of Free Trade, were alive he certainly wouldn't call deals like NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc. Free Trade.

[corpseratemedia]

24. I fear that this country may not recover.

You can't ship off most of the middle-income jobs in this country and expect people to keep supporting a now service-based economy. I think those easy-to-get mortgages basically covered up this massive drain of (often expendable) income. People could still spend, as long as their mortgage rates were low.

"Free" trade's also been a disaster for individual farmers the world over. It's been fantastic for slavery wages and horrifying working conditions abroad, creating our gargantuan trade deficit, etc. And it's great for political and economic instability.

Now we get the "privilege" of experiencing this. No more jobs...enjoy the melamine.

[SammyWinstonJack]

33. We will recover. It will take awhile and it will likely get worse before it gets better and it

won't be easy, but we will recover. Hopefully, we have learned from our past mistakes, so that we never again revisit the past 28 yrs and most specifically, the past 8 yrs.

[Zhade]

102. It won't as long as fucking idiots like those above keep pushing the lie that it benefits ANYONE.

NT!

[Bernardo de La Paz]

27. What makes you think the US plays by Boy Scout rules? Think again.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

28. Trade barriers were the primary cause of the Great Depression. Read Galbraith. Good timing? Not.

[Elwood P Dowd]

34. That's bullshit.

The numbers say otherwise. Smoot-Hawley had maybe 1-2% effect.

[rockymountaindem]

38. And the chronology is wrong

Smoot-Hawley was not implemented until after the Depression was well underway.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

324. June 1930, 8 months after the 1929 crash, Smoot-Hawley turned a recession into the Great Depression.

[Hippo_Tron]

91. Primary cause? Not even close but Smoot-Hawley wasn't a good thing

But the same lessons do apply and even more so in the era of globalization. Immediate withdrawal from any trade agreements would have disastrous effects in the immediate future.

[Elwood P Dowd]

94. Our trade agreements are a fucking joke.

They all need to be trashed and renegotiated. The differences in duties and VAT between us and our trading partners is often 40% or more. You have no idea how skewed these agreements are, and that's why I call them "Fake Free Trade". David Ricardo would laugh at them if he were alive.

[Hippo_Tron]

99. Renegotiation is fine if all of the parties are willing to sit down at the negotiating table

But if you are suggesting that we simply withdraw from trade agreements and sit on our hands until other countries agree to renegotiate then you are proposing something that will be disastrous to the economy.

And it's not exactly like all of the discrepancies are one-sided. Ever hear of agriculture subsidies?

[Elwood P Dowd]

106. Corporate lawyers wrote the agreements

and that's why we have ag subsidies and protections for the sugar industry. We have no free trade agreements. We have investment/outsourcing agreements from corporations who own the politicians. I am not against free trade, I am against what is being called "Free Trade" in the here and now. We are not following David Ricardo's free trade theory, and our current trade deals are going to continue the race to the bottom until they are fixed.

[Hippo_Tron]

107. I agree with you to an extent

NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade agreements have been quite accurately described as simply a list of protective barriers.

That said, there is a certain extent to which I think there should be temporarily lopsided trade provisions in the interest of helping poor countries develop their industry. Eventually they should have to compete in the same market as everybody else but they should be given time to make their industries sustainable.

But my main disagreement is that I think you place too much emphasis on the impact that these lopsided trade agreements have on the economy. Yes much of these agreements were written by lobbyists. So is most legislation written in this country. Yes there were influential industries that got protection. That's, unfortunately, how our political system works.

If we eliminated all of these lopsided trade barriers, however, I don't think it would eliminate our trade deficit or even come close. The reason we have a trade deficit is mostly due to the fact that both public and private saving in this country is negative.

[Elwood P Dowd]

108. Savings is negative because Real Wages are falling

and one of the reasons Real wages are falling is because good-paying, middle class jobs are being shipped out of the country by the millions, and you support it! Wake the hell up!! People can't save when they're losing manufacturing jobs or jobs related to manufacturing that pay a decent wage then they're forced to take a service job that pays lower wages with fewer benefits. Free trade and outsourcing are driving down wages for the middle class and forcing people to spend their savings or use credit to maintain a middle class standard of living. And it's not just manufacturing. This free trade and outsourcing has now moved to the technology and engineering sectors. I know three electrical engineers who have lost their jobs and are now working for half what they made 10 years ago. Their replacements in China and India make less than 20K a year.

The CPI numbers from the government are a joke because they do not want people to really know how far they have fallen since this free trade and supply side economics took hold in the 1980s. I simply cannot fathom why you or any other so called progressive would even attempt to defend what's happening to our country. It's all planned and coordinated by a small group of republican wealthy elites and corporate crooks (with some help from the Clinton DLC crowd), yet you defend it.

[Hippo_Tron]

109. That is undoubtedly part of the equation

And when there was actually negative job growth between 2001 and 2005 yet we weren't in recession for much of the time, it is indeed a cause for serious concern about what exactly the hell is going on. That being said, the engineer in India is going to make 20k no matter what because 20k goes much farther in India than it does here. No amount of fixing lopsided agreements can change that fact.

But the United States' negative savings rate is not due entirely to trade. Much of it has to do with access to cheap credit and a culture of debt that has been prevalent since the Reagan era. On the government side, we rack up huge deficits mostly because of Bush's wars. Even during the early years of the Clinton Administration with NAFTA and all, the Trade Deficit was negligible.

Only in the late 90's did the trade deficit start to skyrocket which was right around the time that the Federal Reserve began slashing interest rates like mad men. The one exception was 2000 actually raised the rate above 6% and the trade deficit was actually reduced somewhat that year. But every year since interest rates have plummeted and the culture of "free money" has taken over. After all, people need to buy all of that cheap crap from China in quantities that no human could possibly actually need if we're going to actually sustain a trade deficit like we do. And in order to do that, they stop saving and they go into debt. Add in a President who thinks deficits don't matter and tells us we should respond to 9/11 by going shopping and you have the perfect storm.

I'm not saying that your concerns about free trade are invalid. They are very valid and are often ignored by those who worship Friedmanism at the alter. But I think that you are placing too much emphasis on free trade as the sole cause for many of the problems our economy faces.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

277. These Free Trade agreements are only nominally about countries

They are really about corporations being given free reign to engage in labor arbitrage and locate wherever the safety and environmental laws are the most lax.

The main reason that savings in the U.S. is negative is that wages haven't kept up with inflation. Americans have been propping up the world's economy on borrowed credit. The crash was inevitable and the Titans of Finance didn't give a shit. The rich are essentially parasites who are incapable of long-term thinking.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

270. It's what made a recession or small depression into the Great Depression

[Elwood P Dowd]

271. More bullshit and republican talking points.

Smoot-Hawley had less than 2% effect on the economy during the depression.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

323. You are the bullshitter. Do your research. World trade declined 66% between 1929 and 1934.

According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.<9>

Figures from the State Dept. website: http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1921_timeline/smoot_tariff.html

[LSK]

200. so lowering the top income tax bracket had nothing to do with it???

http://www.alternet.org/story/106979/why_the_economy_grows_like_crazy_amid_high_taxes/

[SidDithers]

125. Exactly. See Canada and softwood lumber for a great example...nt

Sid

[Evoman]

159. You beat me to it. Canada has been screwed by the U.S. U.S never plays by the agreed-to rules.

Unless the rules benefit wealthy americans.

[Sex Pistol]

31. What you suggest is the quickest way to turn this recession into a depression.

I certainly am not an expert in the issues of world trade, but I tend to favor a policy that errs on the side of freedom.

[eridani]

78. Just "freedom" for our overlords to fuck us over more. Srew that. n/t

[alarimer]

35. Fair Trade, not free trade.

Any and all free trade agreements need to be renegotiated to included strong environmental and labor protections, including union representation for all workers worldwide.

The only way free trade will be fair is when all workers have the same collective bargaining rights everywhere. Then these corporations won't be able to screw the workers quite as badly.

[SammyWinstonJack]

40. Fair Trade!

:thumbsup:

[OhioChick]

36. Agreed.

Leave NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO and let's not forget all of the outsourcing of tech jobs to countries like India, etc. Close the loopholes (as well as imposing tariffs) and tax the hell out of companies that participate in the demise of the American worker.

[MellowDem]

37. Free trade believes in you...

Just kidding! Had a Keanu Reeves bad acting moment. But I disagree with you. Studies have been done on how much trade deals such as NAFTA helped or hurt us. Turns out that NAFTA has helped us overall, and even helped Mexico, though it has hurt Canada strangely.

One thing to keep in mind: trade is not some economic theory, it is a human reality since the beginning of time. And it is always beneficial overall. Depending on the countries trading, certain actors in each country will lose out from trade, but the overall gain will more than exceed the loss for both countries. Often times it comes to those who own capital (capitalists) and labor. If the US is great at producing capital (such as heavy machinery, etc.) and another country is great at producing cheap labor (China right now, with lots of immigrants) and they begin trading, the capitalists in China will lose out and the labor in the US will lose out, but overall production will increase, prices overall will go down, and the standard of living overall will increase in each country. Overall, the US is earning more money due to free trade. Now, the kicker is how we use this extra cash. Right now, lots of money is flowing to the owners of capital in the US. The benefits from free trade are only being enjoyed by a small fraction of the population. This is what is wrong with our current system. Now, it can be made that we use that extra benefit from trade to offset and help relocate those workers displaced by free labor and invest in our nation (healthcare, education, infrastructure). But we are not. Instead, we spend tons of money on wars (a black hole economically) and a huge, bloated military that is not sustainable.

Isolating a country economically is incredibly foolish. Such countries have horrible standards of living. If we isolate ourselves, we will see our standard of living drop off very fast. What it comes down to is that the world overall is imbalanced economically, and globalization is increasingly equalizing standards of living. Hence, that is why the standard of living for many Brits dropped off when they lost their empire. Those at the top will fall, those at the bottom will rise. It's not necessarily a bad thing overall, but it is tough for the US which is used to a certain level of living.

Years of protectionism (which you are advocating) is what got the Big 3 where they are today. And protectionism actually hurt us overall. It helped the Big 3 at the time, and hurt everyone else for a net loss. The consumer especially loses out when it comes to protectionism. Once again, benefits for the few at the expense of the many. Except this time, it also was an overall net loss for the US. Other countries using protectionism are hurting their economies overall. Usually protectionism occurs in certain sectors because of the political clout of some interest group (like auto industry, corn, etc.) Sometimes, countries that wish to establish their own new industry will protect it at first for a loss so that the business can survive its infancy.

[misanthrope]

43. Protectionism alone isn't the root of the problem...

...According to the principles of free trade advocacy, one of the automobile manufacturers should have shifted to fill the niche that foreign automakers exploited. The market should have driven toward that end if a domestic manufacturer had attempted the move.

However, the market doesn't exist in a vacuum and the Big Three were guilty of collusion and tilting the economic and legal system to their advantage, effectively eliminating a truly free market. The failure wasn't solely because of protectionist policies against imports but because of the power that was concentrated within a tiny number of entities. Had there been a wider variety of automakers necessitated by anti-trust regulation, then a truer free market would have been in effect.

Free markets only work when power is balanced. What has happened with regard to Walmart and small town businesses in the last few decades is a perfect example of that violation and its outcome.

[MellowDem]

48. Not so sure...

A lot of the power and lack of competition enjoyed by the Big 3 was bought by the government (basically the taxpayers). It is true that protectionism of industry can often lead to monopoly like behavior and collusion among the protected industries.

[misanthrope]

50. It's not inherently the moat, it's what's within it...

...and what that moat encircled, stunk.

Everyone always uses the example of the Big Three and the effect of Asian automakers on that market in the 1970s, but I scarcely hear anyone talk about the effects of American protectionism on European automakers and their U. S. sales.

[MellowDem]

259. Europe is competitive here as well

And they make better cars. It's just that they are usually correspondingly more expensive, which isn't always the case with Asian automakers. Either way, protectionism hurt the American consumer and also helped to keep the auto industry from ever having to face realities about carbon emissions or efficiency.

[misanthrope]

319. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one...

...I don't think it was purely protectionism. I remember what a joke Asian vehicles were then. They were considered unsafe and poorly made, though they were inexpensive. They didn't suit the demands of the American market of the time.

Americans didn't care about carbon emissions. The cared about their wallets utmost and gas was cheap and plentiful.

Protectionism didn't seem to effect some European manufacturers. Mercedes had their niche as did MG, Triumph, Volvo and BMW (although BMW's popularity would skyrocket in the '80s). Volkswagen prospered in the '60s and '70s, protectionism be damned and the VW Beetle became an ubiquitous part of American life.

What I recall was the oil embargo of the '70s and economic unease creating a rapid about-face in the demands of the American public and the Asian manufacturers were on the spot with cars tailor-made for the rapidly shifting consumer focus. Gas efficiency became utmost.

Detroit managed to shift gears somewhat in the coming years, but by the time they embraced the new trends, the Japanese had established themselves in the public consciousness. As their quality caught up with their American counterparts, it changed the playing field.

[amandabeech]

321. European cars have a real tendency to break down frequently.

Take a look at Consumer Reports.

Also, please provide cites to your claim that NAFTA benefited the U.S. and Mexico, but not Canada. I have read that Canada did well. Please include cites that discuss numbers of jobs and the wages and benefits of those jobs. I'm not interested in average numbers since Mexico and our GINI scores are so high.

[SammyWinstonJack]

92. Fair trade. Try that on for size. It is what really works.

[MellowDem]

261. Free trade is the fairest form of trade...

Think of it this way. With free trade, there are winners and losers, with overall gain.

With tariffs, protectionist policies, quotas, there are winners and losers, with overall loss.

The problem with "fair" trade is that there is no set definition that will ever be agreed upon by all countries about what is "fair". It's rather subjective. As it is, I don't think people understand that when a country like China or Japan practices "unfair" trade policies, they are actually hurting their own economies as well as ours.

[pokercat999]

39. look here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=406243&mesg_id=406247

[Nye Bevan]

41. Right. What does Paul Krugman know, anyway?

Nobel Schnobel.

[Zhade]

104. He doesn't support "free" trade.

NT!

[Nye Bevan]

115. From his Wikipedia page....

When there are economies of scale in production, it is possible that countries may become 'locked in' to disadvantageous patterns of trade.<16> Nonetheless, trade remains beneficial in general, even between relatively similar countries, because it permits firms to save on costs by producing at a larger, more efficient scale, and because it increases the range of brands available and sharpens the competition between firms. Therefore, Krugman has usually been supportive of free trade and globalization, and critical of industrial policy. (He writes on p. xxvi of his book The Great Unraveling that "I still have the angry letter Ralph Nader sent me when I criticized his attacks on globalization.")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

[mrreowwr_kittty]

301. Appeal to Authority.

Some of the people who developed the nuclear bomb were Nobel Prize winners too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Right. Paying more for what we buy is good for us?

Whether we like it or not, we live in a global economy. Tariffs and trade barriers won't help. What's needed is an international body to regulate trade practices.

The one good thing about the collapse is that the governments are going to be forced, kicking and screaming, into some sort of cooperation for their mutual good.

Or, they can fight it out with trade barriers and let the common folk take it in ass.

[Elwood P Dowd]

44. We already have an international body to regulate trade,

and it's called The WTO. It's also corrupt to the core just like all the fake free trade deals such as NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA, and all the other outsourcing/investing scams that are masquerading as so called "Free Trade". We need to ditch all those agreements and start over.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Fine with me, but we'll still have a global market in need of regulation.

[pampango]

46. Most Du'ers want the US to sign the Kyoto Agreement and live up to international

agreements, whether they are environmental, diplomatic, or humanitarian. If the Obama administration doesn't like some aspects of Kyoto or NATO or international action in Darfur, I hope that it negotiates with other countries rather doing a "Bush" and acting as a lone cowboy.

When it comes to economic and trade issues, a common sentiment here seems to be that the US should drop out of international agreements that we have signed and build up walls to keep out foreign goods, services and migrants. If the US doesn't like some aspects of GATT/WTO renegotiate them just like we would do with other types of treaties. The world needs a set of rules to guide trade between countries, just like it needs rules to control the effect of one country's pollution on the rest of the globe.

[Breeze54]

70. Is that you George?

:shrug:

"Whether we like it or not, we live in a global economy. Tariffs and trade barriers won't help. "

Ba Lone Y !!

[Nye Bevan]

84. Perhaps it's Al Gore?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE0D7173EF935A35752C1A965958260

:shrug:

That would be *two* Nobel prize winners who are pro-free trade (Krugman and Gore). Are there any anti-free-trade Nobel laureates?

[Elwood P Dowd]

88. And both were wrong on free trade

because the deals they supported (NAFTA, GATT) were not free trade. Neither Gore or Krugman even read the agreements. It was a scam, and they were taken in by them.

[BeFree]

49. Like it or not...

...there be a move afoot to make US citizens more equal with the rest of the world.

There is some wisdom in that, in that as it stands, USians are way less earth friendly than most of the world. Equalization may be a good thing. Certainly if everyone else lived on par with the US, we'd have already used the last barrel of oil. So we, following that idea, must be taken down a few notches.

[RB TexLa]

51. "I just don't think it works for us"

What an arrogant way to look at the world. How you think something works for Americans is all that counts.

Sick, sick, sick. :puke:

[Elwood P Dowd]

61. You are the one that's sick.

You support shipping millions of jobs out of the US to countries that pay slave wages, abuse their workers, pollute the hell out of the planet, avoid all consumer protection and labor laws, and then ship the product back to the US almost duty free.

[OhioChick]

67. Screw the American worker, as usual.

:eyes:

[NYC_SKP]

52. Over time, all workers (including us) will be paid shit wages.

It sounds so noble to say that we are lifting up other workers around the world, but in reality their lot may improve slightly, but our workers then have to compete with their still very low wages and in the end the only real winners are those at the top.

I agree with employing trade barriers, rewarding domestic production, reaching a zero trade deficit, put American workers first first first.

[Breeze54]

72. What do you mean WILLL be paid shit wages?!

:wtf:

And I agree with that! "put American workers first first first."

Fuck NAFTA!!

[NYC_SKP]

82. Right you are...

I'm old enough to remember good wages, and benefits, too.

$12.75/hour out of high school in 1976 in landscape construction. 1976!!!

Now, a laborer is lucky to get 10 bucks an hour.

Thanks for nothing Ron, Bill, George one, George two.

[wartrace]

54. Five hundred & fifty people will lose their jobs at my union factory due to Nafta.

I may or may not be among the unemployed, it is yet to be determined. These are 20 - 25 dollar an hour jobs. That's over two million dollars a year in lost income for the Nashville, Tn. Area. The company announced an increase in production at one of their Mexico plants due to a need to "meet the demand in the north American market" then turned around & said they need to CUT production at our plant due to "the LACK of demand in the north American market".

Most people who do not seek additional training or education will not be able to find employment anywhere NEAR what they make now. Free trade is great until you suffer for it. Don't worry, EVENTUALLY you will suffer. There will be reduced tax income so layoffs will come to public service employees. If you are in higher education people won't be able to afford to send their kids to college. No new cars will be purchased, no teeth cleaning at the dentist, no new big screen TV & no expensive coffee in the morning. When you reduce the workers wage you eventually reduce the entire economy. Credit has been propping up a false economy for the past few years, now we will pay for it. Be prepared for a HUGE reduction in things that "should be done" by government. We will not be able to afford it.

[OhioChick]

68. NAFTA really helped kill Ohio. n/t

[Azlady]

105. We need to can Nafta!

[dflprincess]

69. NAFTA has made us vulnerable as well as poorer

We used to be self sufficient, now we depend on other countries to supply us with nearly everything we use. Shipping all our manufacturing out of the country is going to come back and bite us in the ass.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. Free trade is part of the creative destruction cycle

I believe in free trade generally but I will admit that advocates often ignore the destruction factor of the equation and over-emphasize the creation part. It is certainly worth it to ask ourselves just how much cheap stuff from Wal-Mart do we really need and what are the external costs for all of that cheap stuff.

Industrially produced goods are going to have negative externalities no matter what. Outsourcing is only one of these negative externalities (and only if you consider it a negative). The larger question is not really about free trade, it's about whether or not we're willing to do without some of the advantages of all of these goods to get rid of some of the externalities.

[Cassius23]

215. You used the magic word! Externalities!

*DING DING DING*

Why, at the end of the day, free trade ends up being a bad idea. The externalities end up eating all of the benefits up.

[apocalypsehow]

77. I never believed in it - it's a farce, and has been since mercantilism collapsed. n/t.

[TheFarseer]

85. It's basically reverse mercantilism

Mercantilism is a great idea - not fair, but a great idea if you can do it. Shipping the means of production to another country, letting them have the manufacturing jobs, and buying their finished good is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Mercantilism is a great idea if you see international relations entirely as a zero sum game

Of course, that's a pretty narrow view of international relations.

[Tumbulu]

80. fair trade with all labor and environmental safeguards imposed on US manufacturers

required before products can be imported. No tariffs, simply these requirements.

No DDT residues on imported cotton products to pollute our waters because India and China give it to their farmers free of charge and then buy US cotton to produce items for sale into the EU who demand DDT free textiles. No slave labor anything. Just shut down all products produced with lower labor and environmental standards than ours. Our industries will then be able to compete and their industries if they want to export to us will have to be responsible players.

[Elwood P Dowd]

83. The corporate loving, free trade at all costs, screw the worker worshiping

posters that have invaded this thread will not like that idea Tumbulu. They will always find a way to support the insanity and the investment scam that is now mistakenly called "Free Trade".

[Tumbulu]

86. I know, I am saddened by the many posts in this thread defending "free trade"

I was explaining to my friend this morning what happened to the textile industry in this country and then to read some of these posts above......yikes.

[Elwood P Dowd]

87. The textile workers now reside in places like China,

make 50 cents an hour, work 6-7 days a week, and their US-owned company pollutes the living, fucking hell out of the place because they couldn't get away with that shit in the USA. Oh well, some DUers support this crap because some corporate sponsored ECON 101 professor told them that fake free trade deals were the greatest invention since sliced bread.

[TheKentuckian]

89. The free trade people are stuffed up on propoganda

come back to me when our partners are paying living wages, providing benefits, and protecting the environment.

The only one that makes any sense to me is arguably NAFTA, and that's only because I foresee the need for the the entire super-continent working in the same direction to give us the ability to compete with China, India, the EU, and whatever budding power economies are building up.

This whole premise has been wrongheaded. Globalization was sold as pretty much akin to hand me downs but the thing is we're "handing down" shit we are still really in need of. You don't take these kinds of steps until you've fully moved on.
Now, unchecked this will result in most of the world's non-wealthy being the at the same subsistence existence levels and funneling money to the power-mongers at a heightened pace.

We can isolate, if we need to. We have all the resources. For the most part we're still sending the raw materials out to be made into products and we buy back our own crap.
Call me a nationalist all you wish. I'm concerned about America first and also feel that dragging us down into poverty isn't going to help the average citizen of the world as much as the folks that actually are making out on this scam try to say, and if it is I still say fuck 'em. They can wait another generation or two for their piece of the pie.

[mdmc]

95. I support world trade through the connection

of sustainable regional economies.

Pretty much agree with you...

[Zhade]

97. You're right, it doesn't work - except for the rich who don't give a fuck about others.

NT!

[HughBeaumont]

113. Not to sound cliche . . . but did I stumble into "Republican Underground"???

WTF is UP with some of the posts on this thread? Who let the Hayek/Friedman droolers in the building?

Do people have their nose buried so far in a textbook that they don't see the small-town ruin, closed plants, flea-market malls or dying cities around them?

This is all caused by the Friedman brand of well-framed, wealth-at-the-top-to-stay economics. Look at your damned history, people. These same conditions led to the Depression and to the boom/bubble/crash/recession pattern we've been seeing repeated over and over again these past 3 decades.

Free trade ALWAYS comes at a price. That would be in the form of Real Wages not increasing since 1979, environmental destruction and the rich-poor gap as wide as a yawn.

Wake the hell up. Our trade agreements do not work. Laissez-Fail capitalism doesn't work. Friedman's utopia is never going to be achieved as long as we're assuming wealthy, selfish and greedy people are going to be benevolent.

[corpseratemedia]

116. I wonder how many of those who love "free" trade

actually experienced losing a job to outsourcing.

It's devastating and remains so years after it happened because you end up earning a third or a quarter of what you used to earn. We have struggled for years now to keep a roof over our head and we've sold almost everything in our house. The jobs in the fields we worked in are gone and what's left is sometimes less than what they pay H1-B visa workers (using them for those nice big corporate tax breaks perhaps?). We just got into a program to help lower our mortgage (trying to avoid foreclosure) - a non-adjustable one. Worse is the fact that these companies that outsource falsely advertise for jobs just for show so that they can legally get around hiring Americans.

The Slave Trade lovers put their magical glasses on, talk in utopian generalities about the wonders of the global market "equalizing" wages LOL and refuse to acknowledge the relationship between this "recession" and the exporting of millions of IT and textile and manufacturing jobs abroad. Maybe they need to experience it firsthand to see the truth, that's what usually has to happen with republicans.

BTW, If unions are destroying auto manufacturing jobs, how does that explain the loss of all those non-union Southern-state textile jobs ? Oh yeah ... NAFTA, CAFTA..etc.

I've been reading here for ages and recently at certain times it does seem like a republican anti-worker forum.

[fascisthunter]

177. It's Worse I Think.... they aren't all brainwashed...

they know how bad this is for the majority of people around the Globe. They just want to keep posting their bullshit talking points in hopes others do not sway away from their BS "free-trade" Scam.... They just don't give a damn because they never have to make a sacrifice and many of them actually invested in this shit. They got theirs...

Their opinion that this is good, just highlights how little they actually care about average people. They look upon us as ants.... or the other. It's OK for us average Americans to make the sacrifice, but never ok for corporations to be forced to play by some fucking rules. "regulations are evil"

Well, deregulation created the Great Depression and the very severe economic reality most of us struggle in today.

It should tell you enough about where these folks are coming from.

[Elwood P Dowd]

213. All of our major so called "Free Trade" deals were written & negotiated by republican politicians

and their corporate lobbyists. NAFTA and GATT were negotiated by George H. W. Bush and Carla Hills. CAFTA, Korea, Columbia, and several others came under George W. Bush. Many DU free traders just see the name "Free Trade" on an agreement and immediately have orgasms thinking of some global trade Utopia.

[Ignis]

217. Seconded.

The best part about some of the posts upstream is the "you liberals" or "you lefties" rhetoric.

Talk about a giveaway. :eyes:

[Raksha]

255. I know...I've read through almost this entire thread...

and I can't imagine where these people are coming from!

Re WTF is UP with some of the posts on this thread? Who let the Hayek/Friedman droolers in the building?

Do people have their nose buried so far in a textbook that they don't see the small-town ruin, closed plants, flea-market malls or dying cities around them?

This is all caused by the Friedman brand of well-framed, wealth-at-the-top-to-stay economics. Look at your damned history, people. These same conditions led to the Depression and to the boom/bubble/crash/recession pattern we've been seeing repeated over and over again these past 3 decades.

ANYONE can figure out what's happening, just by looking around them. And most of the time you don't have to look far. I'm in California which is facing a massive budget shortfall, in a neighborhood with 3-4 foreclosed houses per block.

And anyone with half a brain can figure out WHY it's happening. It's because jobs that pay a decent wage have been and are being lost by the millions, and not being replaced. A "consumer economy" that can no longer afford to consume because it no longer produces anything.

[HughBeaumont]

266. It's like, you're laying tons of people off or offshoring their functions:

WHO BUYS YOUR PRODUCTS??? HELLOOOO????

Just askin'. I mean, ignore all of us talkin' good old fashioned common SENSE here.

The problem is that the country will probably have to become a giant dust bowl before anyone that can provide jobs figures this little math problem out.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

302. They remind me of the deluded saps who think the "pro-life" movement saves babies

Some of them keep going on and on about "poor people in the Third World" who are going to be helped by Free Trade and by Americans losing their jobs or getting paid less. It's like there's this complete disconnect with reality.

Wake the hell up. Our trade agreements do not work. Laissez-Fail capitalism doesn't work. Friedman's utopia is never going to be achieved as long as we're assuming wealthy, selfish and greedy people are going to be benevolent.

Ain't that the truth. Except I suspect that neither Friedman (Milton or Tom) ever gave a fuck whether their crackpot theories worked or not.

[HughBeaumont]

311. Oh, they work . . .

. . . for their corporate and governmental friends (Milton) and their benefactors/families (Tom).

For everyone else, there's Recession/starvation/death.

But hey . . . that's the way the cookie crumbles. Sorry you fell out of the wrong womb. :sarcasm:

[Indi Guy]

114. "Free Trade" was (global) Wall Street's way of sucking the life...

...out of the "middle class."

I've met these "citizens" & they're elitists. They feel privileged.

They think that since they were born into money -- they are above reproach. They think they are above our Constitution.

[pampango]

118. What type of trade do you now believe in?

We do have "some trade barriers" with of the rest of the world. Why don't we "rethink the whole thing" first before we pull out of NAFTA and WTO/GATT? Evaluating the consequences of a proposed action before you take it (like the consequences of invading Iraq) and attempting to negotiate differences and use diplomacy before taking unilateral action seems like a better plan for Obama.

[NuttyFluffers]

119. never did, it's an oxymoron.

trade is never free, it always involves negotiation of loss/gain between two or more parties. if it was truly free it would be a gift. that said, trade is good. it brings people together, opens channels of discussion, and moves goods around. it's just certain forms of trade can lead to greater forms of abuses, for example: capitalism, and more poignantly: unregulated capitalism. in fact, globalized unregulated capitalism found its best trojan horse expression in appealing to "freedom," hence the obviously incongruous "free trade" term out to exploit simplistic emotions.

[Nye Bevan]

120. The anti-free trade brigade is similar to global warming deniers

Both groups simply choose to ignore the vast majority of reputable scientific opinion. Neither group cares that they are contradicted by a bevy of Nobel Laureates, and both groups tend to rely very much on anecdotes and personal experience. A factory closed in my neighborhood? Must be NAFTA! Yesterday was chilly? Global warming isn't happening!

Oh, and both groups are on the opposite side of the issue to Al Gore. In my opinion one of Gore's finest moments was when he ate the protectionist Ross Perot for breakfast in the NAFTA debate.

[Romulox]

151. You realize that economics is NOT a science, right Mr. "Nobel Laureat"?

:hi: :rofl:

[Nye Bevan]

158. Really?

Perhaps you should do some editing on Wikipedia.

Economics is the social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.

....

A definition that captures much of modern economics is that of Lionel Robbins in a 1932 essay: "the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."


But there's my point. On the one side we have a huge body of research and study by distinguished economists like Paul Krugman. On the other side we have a few anecdotes, snarky subject lines and "ROFL" smilies on a message board.

[Romulox]

161. "Social" sciences aren't really science either. Science = uses the scientific method.

Economics is nothing more than philosophy. That means there's nothing objective about the value judgments inherent in economics (e.g. that declining standards of living among the lower classes are "offset" by greater wealth for the rich under a "free trade" regime.)

[corpseratemedia]

168. Facts from 2005 re: NAFTA and the future of CAFTA

From Economic Policy Institute:
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib214
July 20, 2005 | Issue Brief #214

NAFTA's cautionary tale
Recent history suggests CAFTA could lead to further U.S. job displacement

by Robert E. Scott and David Ratner


"...Before adopting an agreement such as DR-CAFTA, it is important to understand the following about NAFTA's effect on U.S. jobs:


* The 1 million job opportunities lost nationwide are distributed among all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Those affected most in terms of total jobs displaced include: California (-123,995), Texas (-72,257), Michigan (-63,148), New York (-51,582), Ohio (-49,886), Illinois ( -47,701), Pennsylvania ( -44,173), Florida (-39,987), Indiana (-35,157), North Carolina ( -34,150), and Georgia (-30,464) (see Appendix Table A-1).

 

* The 10 hardest-hit states, as a share of total state employment, are: Michigan (-63,148, -1.44%), Indiana (-35,157, -1.19%), Mississippi (-11,630, -1.03%), Tennessee (-25,588, -0.94%), Ohio (-49,886, -0.92%), Rhode Island (-4,482, -0.91%), Wisconsin (-25,403, -0.90%), Arkansas (-10,321, -0.89%), North Carolina (-34,150, -0.89%), and New Hampshire (-5,502, -0.87%) (see Appendix Table A-2).


NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. No protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors and against workers and the environment, causing a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.

NAFTA has also failed to deliver on its promised benefits to the poorest citizens of the hemisphere, many of them living in Mexico. Real wages of Mexican manufacturing workers have fallen despite a decade of strong GDP growth (Salas 2001). There have been substantial increases in informal sector work such as street vending and unpaid family work in stores and restaurants. One major study has concluded that "NAFTA has not helped the Mexican economy keep pace with the growing demand for jobs?The agricultural sector, where almost a fifth of Mexicans still work, has lost 1.3 million jobs" (Audley, Papademetriou, Polaski, and Vaughan 2003, 5-6)....


....Since the beginning of the 2001 recession, 2.8 million manufacturing jobs have been lost, a decline of 16.8%. Growing trade deficits are responsible for 34% to 58% of this decline in manufacturing employment (Bivens 2004). As job growth has stumbled, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.

The United States has experienced steadily growing global trade deficits for nearly three decades, and these deficits accelerated rapidly after NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994... "

Isn't it funny how anecdotal experience, especially when experienced personally by millions, becomes reality-based fact? Could that be one strong reason why Obama wants to take a second look at our trade agreements?

And equating those critical of "free" trade with global warming deniers is nonsensical. Broad brush, wrong analogy.

[brentspeak]

198. Free-market economists are to physicists and chemists as

astrologists are to astronomers. Free-market economics is not a "science" any more than FOX News reporters are "journalists".

[Kulza23]

237. Economics is a social science

Physicists and chemists are natural scientists; they use the empirical method.
Economists are social scientists; they use the praxeological method.

[bulloney]

269. That's when Gore threw out that Smoot-Hawley bullshit causing the Great Depression.

Smoot Hawley was passed after the GD was well underway. The only reason Gore appeared to be the winner is because at that time, maybe one out of a million people heard of Smoot Hawley. Perot was stunned because he had no response because he had not heard of Smoot Hawley.

The GD was caused by a number of things, primarily risky investing by the banks, liberal credit and other things that came together to form the "perfect storm."

[DonEBrook]

121. What do you propose to export...burger flippers?

:shrug:

[AngryAmish]

124. May I introduce you to Mister Smoot and Mr. Hawley?

[robcon]

134. The idea of Comparative Advantage has not been disproven in >200 years.

Free trade helps both sides. Here's Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman's take on responding to anti-free trade arguments...

RICARDO'S DIFFICULT IDEA

"...The idea of comparative advantage -- with its implication that trade between two nations normally raises the real incomes of both -- is, like evolution via natural selection, a concept that seems simple and compelling to those who understand it. Yet anyone who becomes involved in discussions of international trade beyond the narrow circle of academic economists quickly realizes that it must be, in some sense, a very difficult concept indeed. I am not talking here about the problem of communicating the case for free trade to crudely anti-intellectual opponents, people who simply dislike the idea of ideas. The persistence of that sort of opposition, like the persistence of creationism, is a different sort of question, and requires a different sort of discussion. What I am concerned with here are the views of intellectuals, people who do value ideas, but somehow find this particular idea impossible to grasp.

My objective in this essay is to try to explain why intellectuals who are interested in economic issues so consistently balk at the concept of comparative advantage. Why do journalists who have a reputation as deep thinkers about world affairs begin squirming in their seats if you try to explain how trade can lead to mutually beneficial specialization? Why is it virtually impossible to get a discussion of comparative advantage, not only onto newspaper op-ed pages, but even into magazines that cheerfully publish long discussions of the work of Jacques Derrida? Why do policy wonks who will happily watch hundreds of hours of talking heads droning on about the global economy refuse to sit still for the ten minutes or so it takes to explain Ricardo?

In this essay, I will try to offer answers to these questions. The first thing I need to do is to make clear how few people really do understand Ricardo's difficult idea -- since the response of many intellectuals, challenged on this point, is to insist that of course they understand the concept, but they regard it as oversimplified or invalid in the modern world. Once this point has been established, I will try to defend the following hypothesis:

(i) At the shallowest level, some intellectuals reject comparative advantage simply out of a desire to be intellectually fashionable. Free trade, they are aware, has some sort of iconic status among economists; so, in a culture that always prizes the avant-garde, attacking that icon is seen as a way to seem daring and unconventional.
(ii) At a deeper level, comparative advantage is a harder concept than it seems, because like any scientific concept it is actually part of a dense web of linked ideas. A trained economist looks at the simple Ricardian model and sees a story that can be told in a few minutes; but in fact to tell that story so quickly one must presume that one's audience understands a number of other stories involving how competitive markets work, what determines wages, how the balance of payments adds up, and so on.
(iii) At the deepest level, opposition to comparative advantage -- like opposition to the theory of evolution -- reflects the aversion of many intellectuals to an essentially mathematical way of understanding the world. Both comparative advantage and natural selection are ideas grounded, at base, in mathematical models -- simple models that can be stated without actually writing down any equations, but mathematical models all the same. The hostility that both evolutionary theorists and economists encounter from humanists arises from the fact that both fields lie on the front line of the war between C.P. Snow's two cultures: territory that humanists feel is rightfully theirs, but which has been invaded by aliens armed with equations and computers....

...Many economists -- myself included -- have tried to extend this same courtesy to people who seem, on a casual reading, not to understand comparative advantage. Surely, we have argued, the problem is one of different dialects or jargon, not sheer lack of comprehension. What these critics must be trying to do is draw attention to the ways in which comparative advantage may fail to work out in practice. After all, economists are familiar with a number of reasons why the gains from free trade may not work out quite as easily as in the simplest Ricardian model. External economies may mean underinvestment in import-competing sectors; imperfect competition may lead to a strategic competition over industry rents; because of distortions in domestic labor markets, imports may reduce wages or cause unemployment; and so on. And even if national income rises as a result of trade, the distribution of income within a country may shift in a way that hurts large groups. In short, there are a number of sophisticated extensions to and qualifications of the model introduced in the first few chapters of the undergraduate textbook (typically covered later in the book -- for example, in Chapters 10-12 of Krugman and Obstfeld (1994)).

And so one is prepared to be sympathetic after reading a passage like the following, on the first page of Sir James Goldsmith's The Trap: "The principal theoretician of free trade was David Ricardo, a British economist of the early nineteenth century. He believed in two interrelated concepts: specialization and comparative advantage. According to Ricardo, each nation should specialize in those activities in which it excels, so that it can have the greatest advantage relative to other countries. Thus, a nation should narrow its focus of activity, abandoning certain industries and developing those in which it has the largest comparative advantage. As a result, international trade would grow as nations export their surpluses and import the products that they no longer manufacture, efficiency and productivity would increase in line with economies of scale and prosperity would be enhanced. But these ideas are not valid in today's world." (Goldsmith 1994:1). On close reading, the passage seems a bit garbled; but maybe he is just a careless writer (or the translation from the original French is imperfect). One expects him to follow with a discussion of some of the valid reasons why one might want to qualify Ricardo's idea -- for example, by referring to the importance of external economies in a high-technology world.

But this expectation is utterly disappointed. What is different, according to Goldsmith, is that there are all these countries out there that pay wages that are much lower than those in the West -- and that, he claims, makes Ricardo's idea invalid. That's all there is to his argument; there is no hint of any more subtle content. In short, he offers us no more than the classic "pauper labor" fallacy, the fallacy that Ricardo dealt with when he first stated the idea, and which is a staple of even first-year courses in economics. In fact, one never teaches the Ricardian model without emphasizing precisely the way that model refutes the claim that competition from low-wage countries is necessarily a bad thing, that it shows how trade can be mutually beneficial regardless of differences in wage rates. The point is not that low-wage competition never poses a problem. Rather, what is significant is that despite ostentatiously citing Ricardo, Goldsmith completely misses one of the essential lessons of his argument...."

http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ricardo.htm

[mrreowwr_kittty]

144. The essay is dated and Krugman comes off as really whiny in it, IMHO.

He's a brilliant guy but somewhat of a narcissist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

156. What has superseded the essay? (nt)

[Romulox]

157. If economics were a science, we'd examine actual wage data.

Clearly, American's wages have suffered tremendously under the "free trade" regime.

QED

[Kulza23]

235. We don't have free trade

We have regulated trade; NAFTA and WTO are both trade regulation organizations.

[Romulox]

244. That's a distinction without difference. The neoliberals call one sided agreements "Free Trade". nt

[Elwood P Dowd]

173. We are not practicing Ricardo's free trade.

It's not free trade when you ship jobs and factories out of the country just to take advantage of slave wages, avoid all environmental laws, avoid all labor and consumer product safety laws, and then ship the product back to the USA almost duty free. It's neither free trade or fair trade when we allow our trading partners 15 years to lower their tariffs while we lower ours almost immediately. It's not free or fair trade when we allow our trading partners to charge a VAT of up to 30% on USA-made products while we have no VAT on their products. It's not free or fair trade when a small group of corporate lawyers and lobbyists pay off the politicians and are allowed to write the agreements to benefit their own CEOs and wealthy investors.

What we really have is an outsourcing/investment scam masquerading under the name of "Free Trade". Economists like Krugman and other free traders claimed that these free trade agreements would reduce our current account deficits, reduce illegal immigration, and raise real wages for working Americans. The EXACT OPPOSITE has happened!!!

[brentspeak]

201. That's nice. What actual "free-trade" practices exist in the world that are Ricardian?

Do you see China freely importing American-manufactured products? You don't? Well, then why'd you cut-and-paste that entire David Ricardo piece?

[Kulza23]

238. Paul Craig Roberts

PCR's "criticism" of the classical free trade argument is so bogus.

[kenny blankenship]

176. I also have a confession to make: I no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy

Nor do I believe in the "Free Trade" Fairy. But I must admit the "Free Trade" jive kept me fooled up 'til some point in my adolescence.

[Kulza23]

240. Right to free association

The right to trade freely is derived from the right to free association. People can freely exchange with other people, even if they live on the other side of an ocean. For the government to forcibly restrict free trade is to engage in slavery.

[kenny blankenship]

272. Grow up.

And if you can't, Freerepublic is thattaway.
For the government to forbid you to move freely from one country to another is "slavery" on the same order (of idiocy) as that which you posted. They all place restrictions on movement of citizens across borders, preventing them from "freely associating". Gosh that sucks, huh?

[melm00se]

183. trade barriers and tarrifs

draw reprisals and those reprisals can have significant impact upon not just the US but also the worldwide economy.

look up the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act and it's ramifications: 70% drop in US imports and 66% drop in US exports. before you start saying that the US doesn't make anything anymore please account for the $1 trillion in US exports or 11.5% of the US GDP, which, BTW, is an increase over historical export rates (exports composed 9.4% of GDP in 2002 and 5% of GDP in 1967 source: http://www.commerce.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@opa/documents/content/prod01_005029.pdf)

willy nilly and knee jerk reactions to the changing competitive environment is not the way to respond.

[Elwood P Dowd]

191. Link is to the George W. Bush Department Of Commerce

and a propaganda sheet pushing another one of Bush's corporate trade deals - CAFTA.
Smoot-Hawley had little effect on the depression. It was passed well after the depression had began. Here is a post from DU earlier this year..........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x48462


TARIFFS: The Smoot-Hawley Fairy Tale Updated at 1:33 PM

Edited on Sun Nov-23-08 01:35 PM by unlawflcombatnt
Tariffs:The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Fairy Tale

Once again, it's necessary to debunk the Globalist fairy tales about the "damage" caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Below is a copy of U.S. GDP from 1929 through 1939. These are official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BLS)
Printable Version of 1929 to 1940

There is a link to a chart below that has key figures highlighted. On that chart, the Trade Balance has been underlined in Red. Exports have been underlined in Blue. Imports have been underlined in Orange.





** Note on the above referenced charts: The 1929 Trade balance is listed as +$0.4 billion. This is a MISTAKE. It should be +$0.3 billion. Subtracting the $5.6 billion in imports from the $5.9 billion in exports gives a difference of +$0.3 billion, not +$0.4 billion.

Notice that there is a slight decline in both exports and imports by the end of 1930. The trade balance remained around 0 during the entire time. Exports bottomed in 1932 — 2 years before any revision or modification of Smoot-Hawley occurred.


The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley. Thus, the effects of Smoot-Hawley cover only the period between June 17, 1930, and 1934. This is the time frame that should be focused on.

So in reviewing the chart, what evidence is there that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff "hurt" the economy?? Is there any evidence at all?

No, there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy.

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy.

What happens if we focus on exports alone? Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.0 billion in 1933, for a -$3.9 billion decline. This $3.9 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had already declined by a whopping -46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only -3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports.

But the effects on trade must also include the reduction in Imports, which ADDS to GDP. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the "loss" becomes only -$0.2 billion from our GDP — or less than 1⁄2 of 1% of the total GDP decline.

In other words, the document-able "loss" from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff — the "net export" loss — contributed less than 1⁄2 of 1% of our our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression.

To put this in better perspective, let's compare all the GDP components together:

1929 .......................................................... 1933

GDP $103.6 billion--------------------->$56.4 billion ( decreased -$47.2 billion)
Consum. Expend $77.4 bil-------------> $45.9 billion ( decreased -$31.5 bill)
Private Invest $16.5 bil----------------> $1.7 billion ( decreased -$14.8 billion)
*Trade Balance +$0.3 bil-------------->+$0.1 billion ( decreased -$0.2 billion)
Exports $5.9 billion--------------------> $2.0 billion ( decreased -$3.9 billion)
Imports $5.6 billion--------------------> $1.9 billion ( decreased -$3.7 billion)

Again, to re-emphasize, how much difference to US GDP did the export loss make? The Trade Balance worsened by only -$0.2 billion, or about -0.19% of our 1929 GDP ( or less than 1/5th of 1% of 1929 GDP). Meanwhile, our total GDP decreased a whopping -45.5% (or -$47.2 billion).

How much effect did a 1/5th of 1% loss of GDP have on the Great Depression, especially when spread over a 4-year period?

Again, where's all the "damage" that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused?? (Was it was all in "off-balance sheet" accounts?)

From the actual statistics, the true "harm" caused by the Smoot-Hawley is completely fictional. The harmful effects exist only in the minds of self-serving Globalist propagandists, who hope no one will actually check the facts, and expose their disingenuous attempts to re-write history.

Based on available statistics, Smoot-Hawley had almost NO effect on the Great Depression. At the very most, caused a -3.8% decline in GDP from loss of exports. But factoring in the GDP increase from a decline in imports, it caused less than 1% of the GDP decline.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did not cause the Great Depression, nor did it worsen it or extend it. Claims to the contrary are not only false, but easily refutable. The evidence to disprove those claims is abundant, overwhelming, and freely available to the public.

The Smoot-Hawley myth needs to be put to rest, once and for all. The claim that it worsened the Great Depression is nothing but a fairy tale.

[bulloney]

283. Well said, Elwood. I contend that 'free trade' advocates threw out Smoot Hawley in the discussion

because it made them sound like they knew some kind of secret ingredient of the Great Depression. Before the Gore-Perot debate, how many Americans heard of Smoot Hawley, let alone understood what it did and the extent of its effects? I'd bet less than one in a million.

These supporters of NAFTA, et al want you to believe there was absolutely no trading between countries before these agreements, when there was a lot of trading and it was trending higher. These agreements are more or less conduits for trans-national corporations to exploit differences between nations' wages, environmental standards, currency values and other things.

A dirty little secret of NAFTA that most people don't know about: There is a provision that states that any corporation whose investment in Mexico is nationalized shall be compensated in full with G-7 currency. This removed a lot of the fears of moving operations to Mexico because the companies are guaranteed to be reimbursed if nationalization occurs. Nationalizing factories was unlikely to happen under the Salinas administration, but it occurred before him, and you never know if it would occur under any administration post-Salinas.

[amandabeech]

322. It's a huge insurance policy that violates the conditions of Free Trade!

The U.S. history of stable government is a major advantage for us over Mexico, which, unfortunately has suffered under poor, unstable governments which have nationalized industry.

Which party or entity is supposed to pay up if Mexico nationalizes?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

253. That lie about tariffs been debunked right here on this site.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x48462

[olegramps]

205. The working class bought the corporate's line

They convinced the workers that unions were their enemy and that they would take good care of them. The workers in far too many cases were just as greedy as their employers and since they could get the same wages and benefits that the unions had won for their workers didn't want to pay dues. When the unions were crushed, they convinced the American public that tariffs were bad for business. The next step was easy. The greedy bastards outsourced the jobs, cut the workers' pensions and canceled their health insurance.

Welcome to the real world suckers. Hope you enjoy all the crappy goods that you can't even now afford a your local Walmart.

[Kulza23]

233. What free trade?

The important thing to remember is that what we have now, i.e. NAFTA and WTO, is managed trade, not free trade.

[lib2DaBone]

267. Exactamundo.... There is no such thing as "free Trade"

Wall street is run by Insiders and controlled by the Plunge Protection Team. (President's Working Group on Markets)

World Corporations aided by legislation from our CONgress, control all markets.

The American worker has been sold into slavery many times over. We could have a high-tech, high wage economy... but for the will of many greedy CEO's. and our complicit Legislators.

[KG]

273. this is a good thing. coz 'free trade' is a myth anyway

[cbc5g]

289. Free trade is like drug prohibition

It permits a transfer of wealth from rich to poor nations and it's not going away.

[Vinca]

309. I'm not in favor of free trade anymore, either. I suppose the original

idea of it was fine, but unless playing fields are level between traders, someone is getting screwed. In this case, it was the American worker. I was listening to the Commerce Secretary on WJ this morning talk about how our manufacturing numbers haven't fallen all that much. You know why? They now count hamburgers made at McDonald's as "manufactured goods." You can't find a U.S. made toaster or iron or coffee maker or television, but we've got burgers. Sheesh.

[Edweird]

318. Yup. The rich got richer and the rest of us got fucked.

I didn't even get dinner beforehand.

[Waiting For Everyman]

320. I agree.

Although, I never bought it to begin with. The whole idea was logic-impaired from the getgo.

Glad to see some are reconsidering and hopping off that bandwagon though, because it goes nowhere fast.