Stop the cheerleading: Let's start comparing candidates on the issues - Kucinich vs. Clinton: WTO

[welshTerrier2]

Which position do you prefer?

Here's a statement from Kucinich on the WTO (and NAFTA):

source: http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_nadia_go_070213_kucinich_on_the_issu.htm

Unless we cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, corporations will continue to move jobs out of the country and produce goods in developing and third-world nations (with great costs to those countries' workers and environment). In order to buy American, we have to assure that goods are still being produced in America. That's why we must first cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, which have lost us millions of jobs and spurred a soaring trade deficit.

And here's the only one I've found so far from Clinton:

source: http://www.indianembassy.org/India_Review/2005/April2005.pdf

Senator Clinton allayed apprehensions in India that there would be a bar on outsourcing. “There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue,” she said. She pointed out that there were three billion people, who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization.

Please feel free to add as much information about the candidates' positions on this issue as you can locate. Let's learn all we can.

[pocoloco]

1. No Brainer!

[SurpriseImaNinja]

2. BOTH are Bad choices

really they're BOTH bad choices but ill go with the hotter one

[FiveGoodMen]

8. That's Senator No-Brainer!

[papau]

14. Hillary - and Bill - have not changed position since Seatle '97 - add labor, etc to WTO deals

============================================
JOAN M. VEON JOURNALIST/BUSINESSWOMAN PRESS RELEASE February 13, 1997

This empowerment theme of further integration between the global and the local was also born out by First Lady Hillary Clinton...Hillary Clinton reinforced the mergers of the economic, environmental and social which is being facilitated by the UN system. She said, "s we go into the 21st Century, if we can keep in mind the balance of power among these three spheres that effect all our lives and if we can look for ways to work cooperatively together, then I think the doomsayers and the pessimists will be proven wrong." She called, as her husband did in his State of the Nation speech, for public private partnerships. She said, "It is impossible to think of any corporation, no matter how large or any government, no matter how powerful, addressing alone. Whether we like it or not, we are more interdependent today than we have every been. I believe that interdependence is a good development. And it should be respected by governments and businesses alike."

The theme which has been enforced by the World Economic Forum is that we are one, there are no borders any longer-- as a result of the Internet, knowledge is borderless and money is borderless since $1.2T moves around the world daily looking for the highest return or quickest play. Therefore, we are one and must act for the good of the whole which means the empowerment of the UN system as it seeks more power in expanding its domain from the global to the local, where you and I live.
===================================================================================
NEW YORK TIMES By CELIA W. DUGGER

Pres Clinton's handling of American attempt to add labor issues to agenda of World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle widened gulf between rich and poor nations and contributed to collapse of efforts to further free up world trade; in eyes of India, Egypt and other third world nations, Clinton's call to link trade accords to labor standards for workers around the world was protectionism in guise of idealism, motivated by his desire to woo labor union support for presidential campaign
============================================

From: "Michael Moore's newsletter":

Clinton came to town on the second day... and called on all WTO countries to enact laws prohibiting trade with nations that use children in sweatshops and do not honor the rights of all workers to organize a union. Whoa! You see, free trade is an absolute with the WTO (e.g., trade must never be used as a tool to accomplish "social" goals). So, for Clinton to climb the space needle (or was he chased up it?) and then declare that the human rights of workers were more important than making a buck, well, this was nothing short of Paul being knocked off his horse and seeing Jesus! You could almost hear the collective seething of the hundreds of CEOs gathered in Seattle. Their boy Bill -- the politician they had bought and paid for at so many coffee klatches and Lincoln Bedroom stays --- had betrayed them. You could almost see them reaching for their Palm Pilots to look up the phone number of The Jackal.

=====================================
I’ve repeatedly said I thought the WTO process was too closed. . . . if I can persuade more of my
colleagues that, if they don’t want people like the protestors outside of every trade meeting ’til the end of time, they’re going to have to open the process so that the voices of labor, the environment and the developing countries can be heard, and so that the decisions are transparent, the records are open, and the consequences are clear, we’re going to continue to have problems.
—President Clinton. December 1, 1999

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

Senators Clinton, Lautenberg,Jeff Bingaman (NM), Barbara Boxer (CA), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Christopher Dodd (CT), Byron Dorgan (ND), Tim Johnson (SD), Edward Kennedy (MA), Jon Kyl (AZ), Carl Levin (MI), Robert Menendez (NJ), Barbara Mikulski (MD), Bill Nelson (FL), Ken Salazar (CO), Paul Sarbanes (MD) March 13, 2006 letter to Bush on Bush ignoring Saudi breaking WTO rules to boycott Israel.
"We are writing to urge you to protest the decision by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to host a meeting next week in Jeddah to promote the trade boycott of Israel. Saudi Arabia is taking this action despite a public promise to you last November to drop the trade embargo. You should urge the Saudi rulers to keep their word, cancel this meeting, and end the boycott immediately....

On November 11th, 2005, the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled to admit Saudi Arabia into the WTO. As you know, the WTO rules forbid any member government to participate in a boycott of a fellow WTO member. Israel is a member of WTO. Last month, in a Senate Finance Committee hearing, your trade representative, Rob Portman, said that the Saudis “have a responsibility to treat Israel as any other member of the WTO.” By calling for a strengthened trade embargo against Israel, Saudi Arabia is failing to live up to its obligations to treat all WTO partners equally."

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. I prefer my own position to Clinton's, too.

However I've got as much chance of being the next President as Kucinich.

[HereSince1628]

4. Cut and Run Economics.

And unfortunately All the big money Dems support Cut and Run Economics.

[Tellurian]

5. Here is the complete Clinton quote that certainly changes the complexion of your quote:

Cherry picking and editing quotes down is so.....

"On February 26, addressing the India Today Conclave
2005, the Senator urged Indian Industry to invest more in
her country. Though U.S. understood that economic
vibrancy of India was in its own interest, there are people
who feel left behind and might stir up “negative feelings”
against India because they do not understand the economic
benefits of outsourcing, Clinton remarked.

“In June 2002, Tata Consultancy Services(TCS) partnered
with University of Buffalo to bring patented
research in the market place. I would like to see more of
such partnerships,” Clinton said.

Senator Clinton allayed apprehensions in India that
there would be a bar on outsourcing. “There is no way to
legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue,” she
said.

She pointed out that there were three billion people,
who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern
world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization.
“It is not far-fetched to imagine… if the Indian miracle
would be one of the choices of those who feel left behind.

..

[wyldwolf]

6. have you noticed the rash of out of context Clinton quotes?

[welshTerrier2]

9. are you agreeing with this nonsense?

is there anything here "out of context"? i don't think so.

please make careful note of the closing lines of the OP. If you can provide more information about Clinton's position on the WTO and oursourcing, please provide it. the invitation could not have been more clearly stated.

[Tellurian]

10. Of course, a deliberate attempt to cast Sen Clinton in a bad light..

and who do these hypocrites think they are anyway? If they think they are going to get away with such blatant, nefarious, behavior while standing on their soap box demanding the Truth and Lets discuss issues... pfft!

let this sham of a thread fall to the bottom..

waste of time..imo

[PLF]

11. She's a servant of the ruling elite.

She supports all the policies of the IMF etc.

I could go on but everybody knows all of this already.

[papau]

18. no - she is not "a servant of the ruling elite" - See the Seatle quotes above n/t

n/t

[welshTerrier2]

7. oh yes, let's dig in a little deeper

cherry picking, eh? how sad for you.

first of all, i provided the link and called for more input. secondly, your candidate clearly believes that NOTHING can be done about the "reality" of globalization and the outsourcing it has caused.

thirdly, she also said that three billion people have been left behind and then callously referred to their efforts to protect their jobs and their families from greedy corporate abuses as "attacking".

and finally, let's take a look at the very line YOU elected to underline. how helpful you are when you really try.

what was Clinton talking about in the following line:

"“It is not far-fetched to imagine… if the Indian miracle would be one of the choices of those who feel left behind." That's the line you underlined, isn't it???? What was she saying here? Talk about cherry picking. How come you didn't underline this one: "there are people who feel left behind and might stir up “negative feelings” against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing, Clinton remarked."

that's what Senator Outsourcing was talking about. She was saying that three billion victims of the WTO and outsourcing just can't seem to understand the "Indian miracle" and how they might choose to make India a target. So glad you brought that point to our attention!!

[Tellurian]

13. First of all your link is 2 yrs old..

Second- Hillary wasn't running for president in 05' correct?

Third- Has it occurred to you legislation CAN be added to outsourcing stating limitations?

No, I didn't think so!

[welshTerrier2]

20. there you go. the ULTIMATE reason to oppose Hillary.

man, you are really good. outclassed anything I could have said by a mile and a half.

are you like a double-agent or something? are you supporting Hillary or opposing her?

let me see if my limited intellect can grasp where you're coming from ...

OK ... let me take this kind of slowly ... now, let's take your three points one at a time ...

here's your first one: "First of all your link is 2 yrs old"

hmmmmmm ... well, i did say i couldn't find much on Hillary's position. i did clearly invite more information. you haven't provided anything beyond the link i provided so far, have you? 2 years old. so, if i'm clear on your meaning, i shouldn't provide old information; i should only provide new information. that's interesting. is there a specific timeline that's OK with you? i mean, if I go way back to January, ya know, last month, and find Hillary saying that it would be wrong to set a deadline in Iraq, is that going back too far? She seems to have changed her mind after getting beaten up in NH and in the press and then came out with her shiny new position. Is that what you mean? we should only talk about the most recent stand she takes? that would let her get on the record with her very latest polling and focus groups. i guess that makes lots of sense. voters shouldn't expect a long pattern of leadership and consistency when winning is all that matters.

OK. so, your first point is that we should only go back a little bit and always try to find Hillary's very latest "deeply held" position. is there a website where we can track the weekly changes? that might be helpful.

Moving right along to point #2. Kind of similar to point one I guess but I suppose it's a little different in a subtle sort of way. This one sets your standard on what's appropriate to, not just time, but whether what Hillary said was her "deeply held conviction" before she was running for president or after she announced. i suppose it certainly makes sense that pre-announcement positions should be INOPERATIVE. the game doesn't begin until Hillary says it begins. yeah, I can see how you would take that position. If you could please let us all know the exact date she announced, we could expunge the record for everything she ever said or did before that date. sort of like a great big "do over" ... It might also be helpful, then, if you could provide Hillary's position on the ravages of the WTO and outsourcing. I assume she's spoken out forcefully on this critical global issues since she declared her candidacy.

And, that leads perfectly to number three. You've really been very thorough about this. thanks ... you asked: "Has it occurred to you legislation CAN be added to outsourcing stating limitations?" Nailed me good with that one. Man, you know me better than I know myself. Who'd a thunk it? You mean the darned old thing can be modified? sheesh ... who knew??? Of course, I'm sure you didn't intend to make your response solely about my very apparent deficiencies. You didn't, did you? I'm confident what you really meant to do was to provide the information about Clinton's position on the issue exactly as it was asked for in the OP. yeah, that's probably what you meant to do. well, no harm done ... never too late to educate the masses ... even us slow folks ... we might be a little slow but we're eager to learn ...

so, tell me, what has Clinton said about, let me get your phrase right, "legislation CAN be added to outsourcing stating limitations?" Please provide a link to her statements and to legislation she's proposed. No one is saying it's not there. We just want to examine it; that's all ... Oh, make sure it's from things she's said or done since she declared her candidacy. Those are the rules, ya know ...

[Tellurian]

21. Wow...my only suggestion to you is..

a full time membership in "Affirmation Classes"... you know, where all the thin skinned people go, who's actions are challenged, affecting their sensibilities leaving them feeling somehow impotent-

Either that- or it's a Tin-Foil Hat for you too!

[welshTerrier2]

22. so, tell me, what is Hillary's position on the WTO?

is that how you campaign for a candidate? you just attack? that's it?

so, when someone asks you about Clinton's position, you're going to tell them about me? cool .....

you know how they make students who have been bad write something on the board over and over and over ... well, mr. no real response, here ya go? I'll give you the first bunch and then you take it from there? OK? because you sure as hell haven't said one damned word about Clinton's position. not one damned word.

how sad that you actually believe it is perfectly OK to only "count" a candidate's words after they begin their campaign. that is the ultimate hypocrisy of all things Clinton. it's all media and it's all bullshit and it's all polls and focus groups. there's no there, there as painfully evidenced by the fact that you can't even state what Clinton's position is on this critical issue. all you can do is attack me. well, enjoy that. you're going to be doing plenty of it as I continue to highlight the total emptiness on your candidate. anyway, try a bunch of these. maybe the question will sink in with you.

what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?
what is Clinton's position on the WTO?

the response you've made so far: ZILCH !!!!!!!

[papau]

19. She wanted jobs from TaTa Consultancy to be outsourced to New York - and got them

She has always agreed that there is a "reality" of globalization and there is outsourcing because of it.

When did she say nothing could be done to stop the pain caused by outsourcing?

Three billion third and fourth world people have indeed been left behind - and they will get better jobs eventually - and attacking them - as Lou Dobbs does ever night - helps no one.

Isn't it better for foreign firms to buy failing US auto making facilities to make their cars - outsourcing the making of their cars to the US - thereby keeping jobs in the US.

[papau]

17. LOL - Hillary was demanding India outsource to New York -and she won Tata jobs! n/t

n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

12. Actually

I'm opposed to unilaterally withdrawing from treaties and agreements. Why should any country want to deal with us if we go back on our word so easily? Negotiate to improve the treaties if you think they're flawed. Instant withdrawal is stupid.

[Tellurian]

15. Agreed, an anemic bone to pick...offering no alternatives to the OP nm

[MonkeyFunk]

16. my alternative

was renegotiating for the provisions you want.

[AnOhioan]

23. Easy,,,Dennis is right on, Hillary is afraid to offend the corporations

[SaveElmer]

24. Well...

Her comment is self-evident...she is simply being realistic...

Much is made of the TaTa issue...you can hardly fault her for trying to get them to bring jobs into New York...

She has criticized NAFTA in terms of its labor and environmental provisions...and voted against CAFTA...

Personally I am for free trade as long as these types of provisions are included...and I believe that is Hillary's position as well...

[welshTerrier2]

25. fault her for bringing jobs?

i didn't fault her for trying to bring jobs to NY. I think that's great.

when you say you "believe that is Hillary's position as well", i assume you can't find a clear position statement on the issue. is that true? do you think it's an important issue? do you think someone running for president should have a clear position on the devastation that globalization has caused to American labor? is it just a bunch of left-wing rhetoric that the US has lost millions and millions of jobs to other countries?

or do you think globalization really has caused the loss of millions of American jobs? is that a fair assessment of the problem? what about this comment Hillary made:

She pointed out that there were three billion people, who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. Is Hillary saying that she thinks globalization has left 3 billion people behind? is that what she means?

has she proposed meaningful legislation to address what you raised in your post: "She has criticized NAFTA in terms of its labor and environmental provisions". what actions has she taken to right these wrongs? you won't hear me criticizing anyone about trying to bring jobs back to this country. is that the whole "Hillary record" on globalization? a little criticism and one company worth of jobs? is there more? that's why this thread is here.

post Hillary's record and educate us. don't like the OP? no problem. there's lot of room here to set the record straight. take your time. make your case. let's have a REAL detailed look at Hillary's record. as i said upthread, I really couldn't find much. maybe you'll have more success.

[SaveElmer]

28. Well I have to tell you...

I am not an expert on trade policy...

But my sense is that this is way too complex to be able to make blanket statements about its effects one way or the other...

My suspicion is that like most other issues neither the devastation claimed by critics, nor the successes claimed by proponents is true...it is probably in the middle somewhere...

This is one of those areas that I simply have not devoted an enormous amount of study too...

I understand the objection that free trade agreements without labor and environmental provisions can simply cause businesses to relocate to areas where they can simply exploit cheap labor and lax environmental laws...thus hurting the economies of both countries...

I also understand the argument that free and fair trade can have the effect of expanding the economies of all parties....which my gut tells me makes alot of sense...


I understood the objections to CAFTA and Hillary's arguments against it...

I don't think she has yet put out a comprehensive campaign position on this yet...though I suspect she will before long...her voting record on the issue does not seem out of line with other Congressional Democrats....

So how about I do some research in the meantime, and when her campaign position is published we take it up again then...?

[welshTerrier2]

29. works for me.

no one is expected to know everything. i've posted pretty much everything i could find though some seem to have difficulty believing it.

as an aside, directed at no one in particular, i am way beyond sick of the bullshit rah-rah threads. i consider this a major disservice to fixing the problems in this country. too much of what passes for democracy ends up being celebrity crap and campaign trickery and empty marketing and fails to address what really needs to be addressed.

every one of us should demand REAL ANSWERS to the problems we face. that doesn't mean we will necessarily agree with positions of substance that get posted here. but at least there's a real respect for the process.

i watched Chalmers Johnson on C-Span2 last night. He thinks the US is pretty much toast. He thinks we're in a desperate situation and will soon collapse just the the Soviet Union did. I agree with him. There is no time for campaign crap. There is no time for nice candidates that tell us what we want to hear. The issues are very, very real and very, very dangerous. We need real answers to real problems. What we don't need are poll and focus group driven candidates. Let's hope you're not supporting one of those. BTW, if you want to catch the rerun of Johnson's C-Span2 appearance, it's on C-Span2 tomorrow morning (Tuesday) from 5:45 a.m. et until 7:00 a.m. ... might be worth recording it.

Here are the last two paragraphs from Johnson's book, The Sorrows of Empire (he's a former CIA guy):

There is plenty in the world to occupy our military radicals and empire enthusiasts for the time being. But there can be no doubt that the course on which we are launched will lead us into new versions of the Bay of Pigs and updated, speeded-up replays of Vietnam War scenarios. When such disasters occur, as they - or as-yet-unknown versions of them - certainly will, a world disgusted by the betrayal of the idealism associated with the United States will welcome them, just as most people did when the former USSR came apart. Like other empires of the past century, the United States has chosen to live not prudently, in peace and prosperity, but as a massive military power athwart an angry, resistant globe.

There is one development that could conceivably stop this process of overreaching: the people could retake control of the Congress, reform it along with the corrupted elections laws that have made it into a forum for special interests, turn it into a genuine assembly of democratic representatives, and cut off the supply of money to the Pentagon and the secret intelligence agencies. We have a strong civil society that could, in theory, overcome the entrenched interests of the armed forces and the military-industrial complex. At this late date, however, it is difficult to imagine how Congress, much like the Roman senate in the last days of the republic, could be brought back to life and cleansed of its endemic corruption. Failing such a reform, Nemesis, the goddess of retribution and vengeance, the punisher of pride and hubris, waits impatiently for her meeting with us."

[SaveElmer]

30. From a historical perspective...

I do not agree with the dire assessment that we are about to collapse as the Soviet Union did under the weight of a repressive society and an unworkable political and economic system...

As bad as things are now, America has gone through more dire and fundamental challenges to the way it governs itself...and to its reputation overseas...

Our institutions are fundamentally sound, if frayed at the edges...and our political system still holds the fate of the country in its hands...as it has on numerous other occasions of great crisis...

In every instance the political system eventually reverses course...and I see signs of that now...the 2006 elections are the first step in this I believe.

I believe the Democratic Party, who I truly believe will right the ship, will expand their congressional majorities in 2 years and recapture the White House...and I suspect we are in for a long retrenchment from the domination of conservative/fundamentalist policy that has characterized 12 of the last 20 years...

[welshTerrier2]

31. i hope you get to see Chalmers Johnson

he's a very scholarly sort. i read his second book, The Sorrows of Empire. very disturbing. I don't think he thinks we're likely to be saved by our political system. I can assure you that I don't.

interestingly, when asked whom he voted for in 2004, and i was surprised by this, he said he supported Dean in the primaries and voted for Kerry in the general.

anyway, i'm sorry to tell you that i do not believe the Democratic Party, or any other party for that matter, is going to save us. i do not believe we can break our oil addiction in time. i think we've severely damaged our alliances. i think we've severely damaged our credibility. i think we're one conversion to the Euro away from a financial collapse. and, perhaps the worst of it is, i believe our politicians believe they can't tell us the truth of the situation we're in because they think it will be so politically unpopular. i can't tell you how much i hope i'm dead wrong.

btw, i don't disagree with your assessment that Democrats will do very well in 2008.

[leftofthedial]

26. Hmmm. Let's choose.

The Democrat vs. the plutocrat.

[Dinger]

27. I've Got Gourmet Popcorn & I'm Sharing!

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[smalll]

32. Kucinich is far too moderate and cautious on this issue -

Sure, he promises to cancel the WTO and pull out of NAFTA, but that's small potatoes. I'm waiting him to promise full North Korean-style "Juche" - economic autarky - no trade with no other countries, total American self-sufficiency. Come on, we're a big country! If little North Korea can do it, surely we can as well. Plus, the North Korean experience with Juche suggests that if we totally cut off trade from the rest of the world, we might soon thereafter see the end of the American obesity epidemic, which among other things, will help put a stop to the growth of diabetes!

[eridani]

42. There's some nice corporate whore logic for you

You don't like trade rules that privilege corporations and intellectual property over real people and the environment, and PRESTO! That must mean you don't like trade and you don't like rules.

[goodhue]

33. Kucinich by a mile

[k_jerome]

34. who is this Kucinich you speak of? nt.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Okay but Kucinich can't win the nomination

So why exactly should I care about him if I'm only concerned about who may potentially win the nomination?

[welshTerrier2]

36. if you're "only concerned about who may potentially win the nomination"

then you're making a huge mistake.

i am not a Kucinich supporter although I like many of his positions.

the point is that we as citizens and especially as activists need to discuss and define the policies we would like to see. that doesn't mean we should ignore the political realities but it does mean we should make damned sure we understand as much as we can about our candidates. it also means that we should not just blindly accept candidates. i see it as our job to make sure they understand what we believe in and to try to get them to change their positions when we disagree with them.

ultimately, it is our job to debate key issues in the marketplace of ideas and not spend all our time as if the national discourse on things that matter is nothing more than a pep rally.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Agreed, but it's probably not helpful to frame it in a Kucinich vs Hillary thread

Because when you bring candidates in it, it starts fighting over the candidates, not about the issues. Elmer did a thread in response to yours about Kucinich and Hillary on abortion and rightfully so because it appeared your main intent was to attack Hillary and not to raise an issue.

It would be better if we would talk about the issues that none of the major candidates will raise.

[welshTerrier2]

41. i liked Elmer's copycat thread

i don't think we can just do one or the other.

my real objective is the part about focussing on the issues but also trying to educate ourselves about the candidates' positions. it's all too rare to see candidate supporters actually criticizing their candidate on an issue. that seems disingenuous to me.

sadly, and i know this from my own experience on DU, most issue threads don't get the attention that "People Magazine" threads get.

most of what i consider my best threads (saved on my journal page) get like 2 responses. and don't we, at some point, need to know what prominent Democrats have proposed on the issues. i hear the point you're raising and i don't disagree with it. i'm just looking for a vehicle to tone down empty cheerleading posts and increase a focus on the problems and solutions we need to be addressing. and, i don't at all mind admitting that i often see a huge gap between candidate support and the reasons for it. at least that's my take.

[Le Taz Hot]

37. Huh oh!

You know, the cheerleaders hate it when you do this -- that whole get-down-to-issues thingie. They especially hate it when you get specific on them. I'm sick to death of this whole football game mentality. This is literally the life and death of our nation. Fuck the soundbites.

[rman]

38. "Outsourcing will continue" - because large corporate interests want it to continue,

which is why they lobby governments to pass legislation that allows for outsourcing. Outsourcing is not some inevitable force of nature, it is entirely man-made.

[BL611]

40. Canceling the WTO is foolish

unless it was replaced by other institutions(obviously it would be easier to reform and democratize it, which is what should be done). If the WTO was just abolished it would be replaced with bilateral trade agreements which yield even more uneven results than WTO agreements.