Dishonest Trade Talk

[windansea]

Listening to the debate between John Kerry and John Edwards over who would be best at fencing off the United States from the realities of the global economy, it's hard not to be nostalgic for Bill Clinton. On this subject, at least, Clinton told the country the truth.

Clinton's message during his 1996 reelection campaign was that there was no easy escape from global competition. Protectionism would only hurt U.S. workers in the long run. The answer was education and job training that would give U.S. workers the skills to compete -- to "build a bridge to the 21st century," as Clinton put it in the signature line of the 1996 Democratic convention.

Now, contrast Clinton's blunt advice with the pandering and prevarication on trade issues of this year's leading (which is to say, surviving) Democratic candidates, Kerry and Edwards.

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A806-2004Feb23.html

[rock]

1. I miss the Big Dog

Sigh.

[windansea]

6. me too

much easier to find good jobs then

[mopinko]

34. me too

[AP]

2. The debate isn't about protecting markets. Everyone agrees about that.

The debate is about protecting the value of labor.

Globablism today drives down wages but not prices. The profit it creates is going straight up the inside of the corp and out to insiders, taxed at criminally low rates.

Globablism has been a tool to concentrate more and more power into the hands of fewer people.

[democratreformed]

12. Without markets, there is no need for labor n/t

[PVnRT]

24. There are markets in the U.S.

and yet some 3 million people out of work. Why is that?

[democratreformed]

30. Why? I don't know.

I don't contribute much to the trade discussions b/c I don't fully understand it. I have read about the huge trade imbalance and it would lead me to opine that Americans want it both ways. Is that how you see it? Many people want cheaper goods but also want to keep jobs. Thing is, do you think Levi's will cost us any less b/c they're now being made somewhere else? Or Fords? Not that I ever liked Levi's but I will NEVER buy another pair. My sister-in-law says she'll never buy another Ford b/c she's losing her job to overseas workers. That one's harder for me b/c my hubby is a definite Ford person.

The list is very long of items that are built or partially built overseas. So long that I don't even know what goods I could still buy if I were to boycott them all.

What is the answer? I don't know. I really don't b/c I don't understand it all enough. I just know that I hate it every time I hear of another factory closing.

[idlisambar]

31. Consumers can't do it alone

Our manufacturing base has eroded to the point where it is difficult to find an American made product. As for a product that has no parts from abroad that is much tougher still.

"Buy American" is not enough at this stage. A recognition of the costs of corporate globalization and a consequent change in our politics is required. It looks like there is already momentum building...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-23-free-trade_x.htm

[democratreformed]

33. Thanks for the link. Do you have any answers?

I went to the AFL-CIO website like someone suggested but still failed to gain much understanding. Do you know of any other websites? Maybe "Trade Issues for Dummies" or something like that? Just kidding on that one sort of. I really do have very little understanding and certainly not enough to form an opinion - beyond the fact that I hate what I see happening.

[idlisambar]

36. sure

but it is not a trivial. Still it is so important it is very much worth delving into. In general it pays to be familiar with the lingo of economics, if you haven't taken "economics 101" you might want to read some "economics for dummies" book, or find a website -- remember to read with a highly skeptical mind -- most academic economists will concede if pressed that "economics 101" is deeply flawed, but the discussion in the real world is still at that level unfortunately.

This guy comes at it from the perspective of an economic nationalist, not a perspective I subscribe to fully, but the information on the consequences of a trade deficit is good....

http://www.fingleton.net/view_art_un.php?AID=70

Most free trade advocates (if not all) frame their thinking around the "theory of comparitive advantage". There is a lot of information out there about it, here's one link...

http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html

For a very nice critique of comparitive advantage, and a basic economic history of "free trade" check out this powerpoint presentation...

http://debunking-economics.com/Download/free_trade.PPT

For information on the WTO and NAFTA...

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

[democratreformed]

45. Thanks you for the links. I will be reading as much as I can.

By the way, someone down below pointed me to citizen.org already and I have saved the link and been reading some there. I am at work so I have to sandwich my reading in between projects. I will definitely read more at home though.

Thanks again.

[idlisambar]

47. cool, enjoy n/t

[Jim Sagle]

3. Protectionism RAWKS, and free trade SUX!

[redqueen]

4. Seriously?

He was pandering, you know. That rhetoric about education and training... for what? Mc Donalds?

:eyes:

[corporatewhore]

5. you are totally off base

Walmart - i figure if are trade policies keep goin the same direction the only jobs left will be walmart jobs

[w4rma]

7. This is one issue where Clinton messed up big time on.

All this free trade crap does is average out the resources around the world. Which means that America, a country who used to have among the most resources, will have our resources syphoned out to other countries. Wages will go down in America and the wages will never increase in countries with totalitarian governments who treat their citizens like crap (i.e. China).

The longer that our government allows free trade to syphon out American resources, the less power that America will have to affect the rest of the world and the less power that Americans will have over our government.

[AP]

8. Clinton was more or less right about market protectionism. Where he failed

was in putting up bulwarks against corporations from exploiting labor and the environment.

[w4rma]

9. You are just talking about another method of protectionism.

American corporations cannot remain American unless their (overseas) competitors have similar or more costly labor and environmental regulations in a free trade situation.

Remaining solvent is all about remaining profitable and if a Chinese slave labor factory is allowed to compete in America (without tarriffs or some other form or protectionism) against an American factory (where good wages, and environmental laws are adhered too) the slave camp will out-compete the American factory every time. This situation exists for nearly every single job in existence (including occupations that require a good deal of knowledge), not just factory workers, but also accountants, engineers, and scientists.

[windansea]

10. yep n/t

[AP]

32. There is nothing inherently wrong about internationalizing market.

In fact, the labor market should be interenationalized too. People should be able to move around for the best jobs.

But get a clue. What's happening is that we're moving around to countries that exploint labor for production, and using immmigration laws to prevent those people from taking their labor to places with better labor markets.

I don't have any problem with taking down barriers and borders. I have a problem with exploiting labor and environmental laws.

[w4rma]

35. Open borders doesn't work. Trade barriers depend upon the situation.

Setting up shop in a country with lax labor and environmental laws is the only way to succeed in a free trade market that allows places like this to trade inside of this "free" market.

[AP]

46. Free trade in labor could solve that problem. No free trade without free

movement of labor should be the tag line.

[redqueen]

48. Free movement of labor?

So we should just move to India?

I'm not getting this I don't think.

[AP]

53. I'm saying that Guatamalens should be able to move wherever they want

to get a better job.

Don't you see that one of the reason you can put an sweat shop in a third world country and get people to work in it is because it's really hard for people to move around.

If labor markets were free -- if people could go where the good jobs are, and could escape countries which oppress their labor -- sweat shops would have to pay higher wages to keep workers.

You can't have a free and fair market for manufacturing unless you have a free and fair market for labor.

And if you don't have that, then you should vote against legislation which encourages trade with countries which don't protect labor.

Within Africa there is great mobility of labor and I read that one of the things that has allowed a modicum of economic development (despite the inequities of post-colonialism) is that it's eays for Botswanans to go to South Africa and Nigerians to go to Niger, etc.

Labor motility is an important feature of functioning, wealth-producing economies.

[redqueen]

54. Aha

I see now. Makes sense, yes. However there are issues to be addressed there as well.

One of the side-effects of the movement of labor to S. Africa to work in mines is that since the companies would not allow the men to bring their wives, they would use prostitutes. This contributed greatly to the spread of AIDS in Africa.

It's sad that these men who moved to find work were later handing a death sentence to their wives. Even sadder to think of the millions of orphans being left helpless and nearly hopeless by this situation. :(

[AP]

55. Don't throw the baby (mobile labor force) out with the

bathwater (the desire to protect people's health).

[redqueen]

57. No way

I just would like to see some protections for mobile workers is all. :)

Peace

[w4rma]

62. We're a *long* way from free movement of labor.

And therefore, according to your analysis, since free trade doen't work without free movement of labor then free trade isn't going to work.

Note, I don't support lax immigration policies for the U.S. They hurt Americans, IMHO, because *everyone* will move here until we are so overcrowed that noone else will want to move here.

[AP]

63. Which is why Edwards voted for the Jordan trade deal -- because it pro-

tected labor and the environment.

[w4rma]

65. I agree. (n/t)

[idlisambar]

11. the standard bunk

The mainstream media, for a variety of reasons, does not understand the issues surrounding trade and globalization. Yet the luster of "free trade" is fading anyway with the public:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-23-free-trade_x.htm

I think we might be seeing a big shift. Even the corporate media might be forced to take a closer look.

[windansea]

13. why don't you explain

the issues to us??

[redqueen]

14. Why don't you check them out for yourself?

www.tradewatch.org

[KittyWampus]

15. I Have. The Answer Is Moving Fowards & Not Backwards

into the Economic Equivalent of Tribalism.

[redqueen]

17. Mere Rhetoric

Any clue as to how to move forwards? Or the obstacles to that goal?

[RichardRay]

25. Support progress in other economies

OK Red, since the heat death of the universe hasn't arrived yet....

Trying to cut the U.S. economy from the rest of the world so that we can continue to enjoy it's benefits is imperialism in a pretty rampant form (in my not-so-humble opinion). If progressive forces in the country want to create economic justice here then we have to make certain it exists elsewhere.

Yes, it's true that companies relocate overseas to take advantage of cheap labor. If we don't want that to happen a really good way to prevent it would be to do everything we can to improve the economic situation in those overseas locations so that a strong labor movement can get a foothold, a middle class can arise and the labor market comes back into balance.

Building barriers around our economy so that workers in the rest of the world don't have access to our markets is not a good way to pursue that goal.

Notice that I DON'T believe that current trade agreements serve that goal as well as they should. OTOH, Cancun was a strong statement by a lot of developing nations that things have to change. I'll run with that for awhile.

[redqueen]

26. Most definitely

Unfortunately, the ability of our country (which is the biggest consumer on the planet so has the most clout) to affect any kind of positive change for workers (or the environment) will be slapped down immediately by the tribunals in the WTO. The WTO must approve any changes made to any FTA.

Those tribunals are hand-picked by huge multinational corporations. So do you think it's an accident that no changes to benefit workers have come around in the 10 years these agreements have been in place?

The fact that Kucinich has tried to make this clear and other candidates just step around these issues rather than address them is telling.

[Nederland]

68. Question

The WTO must approve any changes made to any FTA.

Can you explain what you mean by this because frankly it flies in the face of everything I've read about how the WTO operates.

[IrateCitizen]

69. You're correct, Nederland

The WTO is an international body developed for the purpose of providing a single framework to international trade. Individual FTA's like the European Consortium (the predecessor of the EU) and NAFTA are their own animal.

Of course, it is quite often the same corporate lobbyists writing the rules for the WTO and FTA's, so it's easy to see where the misconception might occur. ;-)

[w4rma]

19. Tribalsim? Is that where everyone is separated by the

corporation they work for? Is that what happens when Americans no longer protect American citizens/interests?

[windansea]

16. more interested in what candidates will do

not what tradewatch says

[redqueen]

20. You already know

Kerry and Edwards will both make an attempt to get some changes made, which will promptly be slammed down by the tribunals at the WTO.

They go back to the people who voted for them and say "gee, sorry abou that, but I tried!"

And most will buy it.

[democratreformed]

38. Thanks so much for this link.

At first glance, it looks like what I have been searching for - a site with lots of info. I will be spending some time here trying to gain understanding.

[redqueen]

41. My distinct pleasure, democratreformed

I have found it to be one of the best sites on the subject, and it contains lots of links to other sources as well.

:hi:

[idlisambar]

21. Here are some links

I am new here, but most of my posts so far have been devoted to this subject.

I highly recommend this interesting and well-layed out critique of the theory of comparitive advantage (and related issues) in the form of a powerpoint presentation...

http://debunking-economics.com/Download/free_trade.PPT

You might want to take a look at this thinktank for some interesting information...

http://www.epinet.org/

Check out their section of trade & globalization. Public Citizen also has interesting information on NAFTA, WTO...

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

[RichardRay]

18. American had the most resources?????

Nope, we USED the most resources (and we still do). If another country has a lot of labor and uses that to compete successfully that's what we get for our greed to date.

I agree that some of what goes down as 'free trade' is actually imperialism, I do not agree that protectionism is a good response. If we somehow wall ourselves off from the rest of the world and go on enjoying a standard of living we can't have without their resources that's about as imperialistic as anything else.

[redqueen]

22. Fair trade in bilateral agreements is a good response.

It's not protectionism.

Ensuring workers in other countries are afforded the same rights that workers here fought and died for will achieve the goals that Clinton and Reagan talked about, but never really strived for.

*sigh*

[RichardRay]

27. OK, give me another term

for barriers that prevent foreign competition in the U.S economy and limit U.S. competition of foreign economies?

How do we ensure workers in other countries have the same rights that workers in this country fought and dies for if we are not willing to engage with the economies in which those workers work? We can't pass laws in those countries.

U.S. based labor organizations long ago abandoned the internationalism that was popular when they were strong. Remember that? When the labor movement crossed national boundaries? Instead of trying to contain capital within national boundaries returning to international perspectives on the labor side would be a big step forward.

Hunkering down behind trade barriers while the rest of the world tries to figure out how to tear them down isn't a progressive way to address the issue.

[redqueen]

28. No new term is needed, since that's not what will happen

You're buying the scare tactics. Other nations are not going to eschew markets because they're forced to recognize workers rights. They can't afford to.

We engage by saying that if you wish to trade with the US, that you have to play by our rules. That's fair. It's our consumer dollar that they want, and the consumer is always right.

What exactly do you mean by 'international perspectives' on the labor side? That India's allowing carpet mills to chain children to looms is something we should consider? :shrug:

[RichardRay]

29. The old values in the labor movement

didn't recognize national borders, unions organized whereever there were workers. The loyalty was to other working people, not to a political entity. That's changed now and labor is reduced to a constituency inside the U.S body politic. When it was a single entity across political boundaries it had infinitely more power.

Unfortuantely, internationalism in labor got a bad name during the red scares and has never recovered. Now we have Big Labor as little more than just another PAC.

[w4rma]

37. I really hope you aren't trying to convince folks that NAFTA is supported

by old values in the labor movement.

[RichardRay]

39. No, but I hope you're not tring

to say that nationalism and favoring one's own national economy over that of the entire world are an old time labor values, either.

[w4rma]

40. Are you saying that I need to care about China more?

Are you saying that I should want a better Chinese economy even at the expense of our American economy?

I'll elaborate further:
I would be very happy with a strong Chinese economy, as long as the Chinese citizens enjoy free speech, a vibrant democracy, strong environmental and labor regulations, and aren't interested in invading and occupying Taiwan or any other nations, etc.

[RichardRay]

43. No, I'm saying that the only way to get

a better U.S. economy that can withstand international competition is to support a better China economy. As it is there is little or no chance of a labor movement growing in China, scaricity rules and anyone who tried to organize what we would identify as a union would get hit from both sides.

If China's economy grows such that is more wealth in the country of China (and there's an issue that does require attention)then there are rising expectations among all classes of society. Pretty soon a labor movement is possible, then wage/benefit parity begins to appear, then U.S. workers are again wage competitive.

Unless that happens the U.S. manufacturing base will continue to bleed away. If we have laws that prevent them from doing it under U.S. charters we will no longer have U.S. companies. When we have no companies left producing goods within our trade barriers we'll all be sitting around trading a couple of Subway sandwich stamps back and forth. Except, that is, for the folks who followed the jobs.

[w4rma]

44. So you are saying that we should allow U.S. manufacturing to bleed away

until China gets their act together?

This is your pro-WTO argument?

[RichardRay]

49. Excuse me while I cough up the words

you're trying to put in my mouth.

Somewhere up there a few posts ago I thought we left the immediate issue of WTO and moved into talking about the real problem.

[w4rma]

60. I think my analysis of your position is correct. Quotes

a better U.S. economy that can withstand international competition is to support a better China economy. ... U.S. manufacturing base will continue to bleed away.

That is what you say WILL happen if China doesn't get their act together:
If China's economy grows such that is more wealth in the country of China (and there's an issue that does require attention)then there are rising expectations among all classes of society. Pretty soon a labor movement is possible, then wage/benefit parity begins to appear, then U.S. workers are again wage competitive.

Your words.

[RichardRay]

67. Yes, China, No, WTO

I use that as an argument to support the realization that it's impossible to separate the economic success of workers in China from the economic success or workers in the U.S. To do so is imperialism.

It is NOT an arugument in favor of WTO as currently constituted. I recognize that the current form of WTO does little to route the benefits of free trade into the pockets of the workers in the countries where the work is done.

I'm not willing to relinquish the perfectly good term 'free trade' to hijacking by any side in the discussion. If WTO implements free trade well then I'll support WTO, if WTO does not do so that I will not support WTO. In either case I will not stop using the term 'free trade' to mean what it means.

[redqueen]

42. Nobody is saying that

If you think someone is, pleasy say whom.

For the record, Kucinich is saying that forcing our trading partners to recognize the same workers' rights in order to gain access to our markets, we truly raise the tide which will lift all boats. By doing what we are now, engaging in a no-holds-barred race to the bottom, those boats will be stranded faster than Americans want to realize. Even if it is slowed a la a Kerry or Edwards plan, the standard of living in this country will drop horrifically over the next 10 years.

Please note that when Kucinich or anyone says that these trade partners must recognize workers' rights, that these are not exactly the same - e.g. living wage will differ by region. Hopefully you're not here to split hairs. :)

What is important is that a living wage is made mandatory, environmental protections are made mandatory, and the right to collective bargaining is made mandatory before any bilateral trade agreement can be entered into.

And FWIW, these free-trade agreements are really a recipe for disaster to begin with. Every country is different, and expecting a blanket contract to work for every situation is downright foolish (unless you look at it from the perspective of the investor, then it makes perfect sense).

[RichardRay]

51. Sorry, it started to turn into a debate with

w4rma. He/she seems to be advocating for protection of American interests at the long term expense of workers in foreign countries. I haven't confirmed that directly, but subsequent posts continue to suggest that that is so.

'Free Trade' is one of those perfectly good terms that's gotten hijacked and I don't care to go along with the felony. When anti-globalsation folks use free trade as the bloody shirt to try to isolate American workers from those in other countries it just gets harder for me to follow along. I get even more intractable when reactionary behavior is called for under the guise of progressive values.

I do not believe that we can expect a worker in a scarcity economy to trade a job for a lot of First World values that he's never seen in action. He or she is going to listen to the organizer talk, notice that he can still breath and think about what can change between now and the next time the family needs to eat. Then he/she will go right on working in conditions the developed countries find appalling.

I believe that all the well-meaning laws we can make will make little difference in the outcome of this issue. The solution comes from the other end. The best we can do is to avoid making laws on our end that make it harder for changes to happen on the other end. I believe in the power of the dialectic, so I'm willing to let things play out over time without feeling driven to put my own personal stamp on them.

While I may occasionally ride a horse, I do not believe in men on horseback. I often wish I did.

[redqueen]

52. I see your point, but disagree

I think with much sadness about the hundreds of labor leaders executed in S. America and so want to do as much as I can and encourage our leaders to do as much as they can to enforce these rights for the workers of the world.

Enough people died fighting Pullman and their ilk. I say Let's stop the bloodletting and let the power of our consumer dollar do the negotiating. :)

[RichardRay]

56. And I agree

about the consumer dollars. That's why I don't want to do anything that prevents those consumer dollars from reaching those economies.

Let me quickly note that I recognize that NAFTA, etc. as currently instantiated are ineffective ways to get those dollars into the right economies; they tend to make a quick detour into bank accounts that have little to do with the economies where the work is being done. On that point I agree completely.

[redqueen]

58. Right on

Peace

:)

[w4rma]

61. free trade makes it harder for those changes to be made at the other end

because there is no incentive for them to improve, only to cut costs at the further expense of their citizens and our environment.

[PVnRT]

23. Exactly what good are those skills

when jobs are being exported overseas in the name of "free trade"? I get tired of this argument - jobs are leaving the U.S. because workers aren't skilled. Bullshit.

Besides that, both candidates are talking about fair trade instead of free trade. That's different than your strawman about how they both want to wall off the U.S. from foreign trade.

[Adelante]

50. Big Dog was right

The shame of it all is it never worked out that way. I'm hoping Wes pushes his way on this critical issue as he's out campaigning for Kerry.

(Bah, don't remind me :cry:)

Hi, windansea :hi:

[windansea]

59. hey there

it's a complicated issue and I'd rather have someone tell me the hard truth than try to fool certain voting blocs

[idlisambar]

64. what if Clinton was honest but wrong?

It is a complicated issue as you say. Do you consider the possibility that Clinton's position was incorrect even though he honestly thought at the time it was the best thing?

[windansea]

66. of course

hard to be 100% correct on something like this especially on a global scale...what may be good for American economy vs other countries...or good for parts of the economy and not others...as far as the availability of good jobs under Clinton...he was right...