Is protectionism a Progressive value and rate the candidates on trade

[andym]

First, I'd like to ask if protectionism is a Progressive value, and if so how important a value?

I ask because historically, it was a traditional Republican policy for many years. FDR and his reformist free-market Democratic party reversed the high tariff policy promoted by laws such as Smoot-Hawley. Smoot-Hawley is thought to have contributed to the deepening of the Great Depression by triggering a trade war that slowed international commerce.

My second question is how does being anti-NAFTA, anti-China as a preferred trading partner, relate to protectionism? The obvious answer that opposition to NAFTA etc is a move toward protectionism, but only in response to the excesses of free trade.

My third question, is how does protectionism impact jobs? Obviously, certain jobs in certain industries can be "protected" by appropriate trade policy (that's why certain labor unions have always favored special tariffs), but how serious is the potential downside if other nations retaliate against strong American industries?

Fourth, how do the remaining candidates rate as Progressives with respect to this issue, and when this issue is not considered?

Fifth, wouldn't a reward-based strategy work better than a punishment strategy to create a non-traditional kind of protectionism. For example, Clark proposed tax breaks for companies who kept jobs in America and did not outsource them. Who else supports this kind of approach? The advantage is that this approach is less likely to incur direct retaliation.

[democratreformed]

1. Andy, I'm waiting for someone to answer your questions as well.

I still don't have a good working knowledge of these trade issues either.

I see there are two answers now. I was hoping for info and understanding - not salesmanship.

[mac2]

6. Trade Issue explained.....

Go to the AFL-CIO site to read about trade issue...globalization, FTAA, Americas, etc.

Also Public Citizen has a whole Trade section.

Read...and understand..it's critical.

[democratreformed]

7. Thanks. I'll do that. n/t

[mmonk]

2. Didn't Edwards vote for trade with China?

And he wasn't in the Senate yet concerning the NAFTA vote, was he?

[sweetcee]

3. Please forgive me,

but rather than directly answer your question, let me add this.

Both right-wingers and progressives tend to be anti-NAFTA, etc. Edwards is the only 1 of the 2 viable candidates still running who is anti-NAFTA.

It seems to me that Edwards is the only dem who would beat Bush.

[jhfenton]

4. Protectionism

Protectionism favors specific workers in specific industries at the cost of more workers in the broader economy.

NAFTA and other free(r) trade agreements are a strong net job creation force in the economy, and I strongly support further free trade efforts.

Of course those who are "restructured" out of work by free trade do cry foul. They would prefer to be the specific beneficaries of protectionism.

[democratreformed]

5. What is your opinion

of the cause of the factory closings that are still ocurring regularly?

[Armstead]

8. The root of protectionism is "to protect"

You can;t compare the situation today to the 1920's or 189- or any otehr period.

Protectionism helped to make the US an economic powerhouse at a stage in its development when it was helpful. I

It may have been to the advantage of Big Business, and it may have had corrupt aspects. But the basic theory of protecting domestic producers from foreign competition is as old as trade.

So protectionism is not bad in and of itself. It allows a nation to adopt policies that protect its own producers and workers.

International trade is healthy and necessary. But that is not what the modern "free trade" dogma as typified by NAFTA/WTO etc. isabout.

This brand of "free trade" is NOT intended simply to stimulate international trade. It is a POLITICAL movement meant to impose RIGHT WING policies on the entire world. It is also intended to undermine the ability of nations to adopt policies that they determine is in their best interests.

It is a massive sell out to the corporate elite.

[andym]

9. More details, please

You wrote:

"This brand of "free trade" is NOT intended simply to stimulate international trade. It is a POLITICAL movement meant to impose RIGHT WING policies on the entire world. It is also intended to undermine the ability of nations to adopt policies that they determine is in their best interests."

Could give some more details, or some examples that illustrate the general trend? Which Right-Wing policies are being imposed?

[Armstead]

11. It discourages regulation and public investment

Any activity deemed to be harmful to the interests of foreign investors is potentially subject to being prohibited under the rules of these agreements.

Public works are potentially subject to privatization as a result. Nations are not allowed to initiate regulations or specific acts of protectionism (such as the steel tariff actions recently) that "interfere with trade."

That's the direction these are going in.

Here's sopme links that tell the otehr side of "free trade.'


http://www.citizen.org/trade/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Archive/0%2C5673%2C-991%2C0.html

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/index.html

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/FreeTrade.asp

[DaisyUCSB]

10. protectionism is progressive if you're a non-consumer unionist

or a consumer of very little.