Free Trade = Death. Will our politicians in Washington ever wake the fuck up?

[Elwood P Dowd]

These fake free trade deals are killing more than jobs and our middle class, they're killing our pets. Now we find some of the same imported crap is in human food. Nobody has brought up all the imported fruits and vegetables that are irrigated with sewage water and then coated with deadly pesticides and herbicides - chemicals now banned in the USA because they kill both humans and animals. Tons of this stuff is pouring into our country via the NAFTA trucks. The FDA doesn't have the resources to inspect most of it. And, what about the imported meat? Is the USDA doing thorough inspections? I doubt it.

Millions of lost American jobs will not stop this insanity. Millions of dead pets will not stop this insanity. It's going to take dead American citizens. Only then will this insane push for free trade come to a screeching halt.

[maxsolomon]

1. No, they will not wake up - they serve corporations, not the citizenry

Nor will contemporary americans ever truly understand & demand action on abstract issues more complex than gun totin', flag burnin', & abortions.

I feel pretty cynical today.

[BeHereNow]

6. YOU FORGOT "GAY MARRIAGE..."

Otherwise, you are "spot on" as they say.

Our "representatives," for the most part, are owned
by the thugs who benefit from the destruction of
America. And, they are paid handsomely with corporate cash
to create the illusion (Hegel) of a debate on the matter.
Meanwhile...
the wheel continues to crush us all.

BHN

[Richard Steele]

2. Death for us-PROFIT$ for corporations. And too few of our "representatives" work for US.

The Repubs are gleefully returning us to the Robber Baron
era of the late 1800s. And lots of Dems are happy to go along.
DLC "Dems" are Repubs when it comes to Corporate Profit$$$.

[blues90]

3. I doubt it .

As far as I can tell while sifting through decades on earth things has only progressively gotten worse .

Now it's almost too damn late to stop the madness . Who can keep up with it all , whether it's the issues of food , the economy or these continuous wars , each day there is just something else that crops up to remind us just how un-important we are in the grand scheme of things .

We or our pets become a number in some statistic and soon forgotten .

Now that old time farms are almost a statisic and free trade is the way and means of big business practice , we are rolling the dice of chance .

[5X]

4. These are the reasons, along with a myriad of others, that I have gone

vegetarian. Ok, not a purist, but if I do stray I go with
organically and responsibly grown.

We are trying to grow our own vegies this year, at least some of
them, we will hopefully get the rest at local farmers markets.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Clinton, Edwards...

Most of today's 'Democrats', even those running for President, believe that they need only be slightly less far to the Right thant are the Rethugs to win your vote. Based on what I'm seeing on DU, they have a good point.

Clinton and Edwards used to be strong proponents of 'free' trade - they were both fans of permanent 'free' trade with China, for instance.

Will Americans ever learn to check candidate's records?

I doubt it.

[bryant69]

7. You're also assuming that the American people would be isolationist

and not support free trade. I don't know that that is a lock.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Elwood P Dowd]

11. Since when is supporting fair trade over fake free trade isolationist?

Our politicians haven't supported a real free and fair trade deal in decades. It's not free trade when you ship both capital and labor out of the country to take advantage of slave labor and lax or nonexistent environmental and consumer protections.

Most polls I've seen show the majority of the American people are fed up with this crap.

[BeHereNow]

12. You left out the offshore accounts and the fact that they pay no taxes.

Wonder where American is going?
Take a look at the rest of the countries these
fucks have raped and pillaged.

BHN

[Elwood P Dowd]

13. Yep.

We rape, pillage, plunder, pollute, use up the workers, and then move on to another country and destroy their environment and their people. Many of the factories that were relocated to Mexico in the 90s are now moving to China and Vietnam.

[Rydz777]

14. "Free trade" is just a slogan

and intellectually the equivalent of a bumper sticker. The "deals" are draining our country of its industry and leaving behind debt, fast food jobs, Great Wall-Mart of China "associates," and an increasingly squeezed work force. From this week's Time Magazine: "...much of our economic growth of the past 25 years - and almost all the growth of the past five - has been funded by debt."

Good post.Thanks for keeping the subject on the table.

[Elwood P Dowd]

16. We are now a debt-based, consumption economy.

You know the old saying.....

"Production produces wealth. Consumption consumes wealth."

[unlawflcombatnt]

64. Exactly

"Free Trade" has become synonymous with "free" flight of capital out of the U.S. and into foreign production facilities using low-wage foreign labor while the products so made are imported into the U.S. "free" from tariffs. It's a policy that puts no restrictions on American capital outflow, enabling Corporate America to replace American workers with foreign workers, while still allowing them unfettered access to the American consumer market.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum

EconomicPopulistCommentary

[Lydia Leftcoast]

71. Yes, note that "free" trade does not mean that I can go work in any

country I want to. Only capital is "free."

[pampango]

102. Are there any Third World countries in which there are adequate labor rights and

working conditions, as well as environmental and consumer protections with which it would be possible for us to conduct fair trade? If such places exist, or come to exist in the future, they will still have the competitive advantage of cheap labor (though not as cheap as without these protections), since each is a poor country. A worker in China may go from a wage of $4 a day to $6 a day with these protections, but they will still have an advantage over American workers.

Outsourcing may slow, but it would still continue, as would exports of goods from these countries to the US. The only way to stop outsourcing, and the exportation of cheap goods from the Third World, would be to define "fair trade" in a manner that eliminated the primary competitive advantage that these countries have - the cost of their labor.

If, and only if, you do that then I think a person crosses the line from being a "fair trader" to being an "isolationist", at least as far as the Third World is concerned. Otherwise, I do not believe that a fair trader is an isolationist.

[Silence Dogood]

8. The government is trying to get rid of us.

Tainted food, skyrocketing petrol, economic chaos. Yes, they are displacing all of us. To where, one can only wonder.

[BeHereNow]

10. The grave, that's where. Less of us=more for them.

WELCOME TO DU!
The people of New Orleans are US.
That's what the majority of the people in this country
do not yet comprehend when contemplating their futures.

BHN

[BeHereNow]

9. Amen Manny! Americans DON'T know their own history- much less any other.

CLINTON was the one who laid the stage for all that is being done now.
And people are SERIOUSLY considering Hillary, Queen of the labor abusing, union busting WALMART,
as a pResidential candidate?

Brings to mind a saying about people getting the government they deserve.
People really need to learn more about the Trilateral Commision and its member's
plan for the New World Order.

Both sides of the aisle have plenty-o-members...
dedicated to perpetuating the dialectic debate technique
(controlled debate) prescribed by Hegel.

Slumber on America...

BHN

[Czolgosz]

99. More than any other candidate, Edwards endorses fair trade, not "free" trade

From Edwards website:

Big Idea: Fair Trade

Why are the experts wrong so often about the impact of "free trade"?

What is wrong with "fair trade" agreements? Why is it that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold as a job creator but turned out to be a destroyer of jobs both North and South of the border?

Its very simple. The arguments for these so-called "free trade" agreements are about how the agreements work in a make-believe world. The make-believe world is different from the real world in very important ways. So when set loose in the real world, the predictions turn out to be false.

Much more here: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2006/4/17/125445/287

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Edwards:

Q: To me, one of the least mentioned yet most important facets of the 2006 campaign was the issue of trade. And there's a pretty clear within the Senate, which has traditionally been more free trade perhaps towards getting a fairer trade or not giving as much latitude towards the President. Sherrod Brown, being the leader against CAFTA in the House, Bernie Sanders, etc. Where do you see that balance?

Edwards: I think we've gotten caught in this... And even the language, free trade/fair trade. I think the answer is smart trade. We want trade that works for American workers, that works for other workers around the world. I think that there should be real environmental and labor standards in our trade agreements, international standards that are achievable but that are enforceable. I don't think that we should use trade agreements, the standards in them, as a ruse for protectionism. I don't think that's right. So the nuance of how you set the standards is really important. But they shouldn't be standardless. They ought to have real standards in them.

And then the other thing that we have to do that that we're doing a terrible job of right now is providing a safety net for people who are hit directly by trade. Communities, families, people who have lost their jobs - the safety net it pitiful. We've lost the social contract in America. It used to be that employers provided. But now because the employers are leaving, taking jobs to other places, there is not safety net. The only people who can provide is our government. So we have to take some serious steps to strengthen the safety net for people who are damaged by trade.

Much more here: http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/7/12834/09259

Here is an editorial by Phil Gailey with the St. Petersburg Times. It is not a particularly flattering editorial for Edwards and I cite it to show that even Edwards's critics agree that he's going further for fair trade than the other candidates. Edwards plants his flag out in left field:

Caught up in March Madness - presidential campaigning, not basketball - I have begun to tune out Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama for the moment as I try to size up the one Southern Democrat in the race, former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. While most of the other top-tier Democratic contenders are staying close to the political center, Edwards has swerved to the left. I find that interesting, because it occurred to me that three of the most prominent liberal voices in the Democratic Party these days are Southerners - former President Jimmy Carter, former Vice President Al Gore and now Edwards. Talk about a New South.

I use the word "liberal" loosely and only to suggest that the three Southerners have taken positions on issues that put them in favor with their party's left wing, from anti-war activists to Wal-Mart bashers. Of course, you don't have to be a liberal to hate the Iraq war or to resent corporate greed.... On the home front, Edwards has proposed a universal health-care plan that would cost as much as $120 billion a year, paid for with tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. According to The Washington Post, he tells audiences that his plan could lead to a government-run, single-payer health-care system, a position no other Democrat has taken so far.

You won't hear Edwards promising to reduce the federal deficit, either. He says investing more in education, alternative energy sources and antipoverty programs is more important than deficit reduction.

His domestic agenda is appealing. However, it remains to be seen how moderate and independent voters will react to the way Edwards has thrown himself prostrate at the feet of union bosses and liberal bloggers. He has joined union protesters on picket lines outside Wal-Mart stores, and his campaign manager is David Bonior, a former Michigan congressman who has close ties with organized labor. Edwards talks about "fair trade" to disguise his protectionist leanings....
More recently, Edwards refused to participate in a Democratic debate in Nevada after Net-roots activists urged candidates to boycott the debate because it was co-sponsored by Fox News. Edwards was the first to bail out, and the debate was canceled. At this rate, we shouldn't be surprised if Edwards invites Michael Moore to join him on the campaign trail.

http://www.ocala.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070325/OPINION/203250321/1030/OPINION

Here is yet another editorial (this one's from James Pethokoukis for US News & World Report) which is even more critical of Edwards for going too far in his support of fair trade. Edwards Raises the Protectionist Banner:

Given the growing the skepticism of free trade within his own party–last month, House Democrats voted 94-90 against approving normal trade relations with Vietnam–he wondered aloud if there would be any "full-throated Sherrod Brown types" running for the Democratic nomination. Brown, the newly elected U.S. senator from Ohio, is a vocal free-trade opponent. As Podesta sees it, the "the big question is where Edwards comes out." Edwards ran a populist campaign during the 2004 Democratic presidential primaries, talking about how there were "two Americas"–though Edwards didn't get many votes from either.

This is where Bonior comes in. Before retiring from the House in 2002 and unsuccessfully running for governor of the Wolverine State, Bonior was one of the most protectionist members of Congress, not too surprising for a Michigan Democrat, of course. While in Congress, Bonior voted for withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, voted against presidential fast-track trade authority as well as giving China most-favored-nation trading status. His inclusion on Team Edwards leaves little doubt that the former trial lawyer will be the Sherrod Brown or Patrick Buchanan of the Dem primaries, bashing free trade and China all around the country.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/capitalcommerce/061205/election_08_edwards_raises_the.htm?s_cid=rss:site1

[robcon]

15. FREE TRADE IS THE SOLUTION

World prosperity, especially for underdeveloped countries. Peace through inter-related economies.

[BeHereNow]

17. Ummm, did you leave out the sarcasm icon by chance?

Or are you a member of the Trilateral Commission?

?
BHN

[Elwood P Dowd]

18. Well look who is here. Want to sample some imported dog food?

You can always count on ole' rob-conservative.

[OhioChick]

23. Another hit-and-run again, huh?

BTW......I couldn't agree with you more, Elwood. This free trade BS is killing us literally and figuratively speaking.

[BeHereNow]

24. "Hit and run..." perfect description.

Remind you of anyone?

BHN

[OhioChick]

25. Oh, Hell Yeah.

He should be here any minute.

4, 3, 2, 1....

[Elwood P Dowd]

26. If a million people died from imported food

Rob-Conservative would still come on this board and support the fake free trade deals.

[robcon]

85. Whjat the hell are you talking about?

Do you believe the dog-deaths were some Yellow Peril?

I think your reactionary politics is shameful.

[Skittles]

119. why can't we get rid of that piece of shit?

:puke:

[brentspeak]

31. Uh, yeah

[ChromeFoundry]

33. The solution to what?

I didn't know a skull could even be that thick!

[BeHereNow]

34. Well, it IS a solution to people who get tired of covering their ears and singing "NAH-Nah-Nah..."

"I can't hear your cries of suffering..."

Repeat the same shit over and over and you can
make yourself believe it, regardless of the bloody truth.

Surreal, isn't it?

BHN
Welcome to DU btw...:toast:

[ChromeFoundry]

40. Yes it is...

The only way these people will see the effects of free-trade, outsourcing and insourcing is when they are the first-hand recipients of job loss, poverty or death from contaminated foods. Then they will be the first ones in line blaming someone else.

BTW, thanks for the welcome message...

[BeHereNow]

42. And THAT is precisely what the bushbots have yet to figure out...

THEY are every bit as fucked as the rest of us.
THEY are going down TOO!
And in that consideration, take heart, my friend.

When it all falls down, take consolation in watching
the bushbots, who voted against their own interests,
suffer along side we, who tried to warn them.

BHN

[ChromeFoundry]

45. It is unfortunate that everyone will be forced to pay this price

too bad we can't just send all the bushbots off hunting with a big bag of pretzels.

[BeHereNow]

47. No need- they ARE the bag of pretzels and such.

Just picture a glutton gagging on his own vomit.
That pretty much sums up the future for the bushbots.
BHN

[scarletwoman]

48. Bullshit. It's nothing but the same old colonization.

The labor and commonwealth of the many devolves into the portfolios of the few.

"World prosperity" -- are you fucking kidding me?!?! Poverty and displacement and environmental degradation is increasing exponentially. The gap between rich and poor is increasing year by year.

You are supporting filthy lies.

sw

[whoneedstickets]

52. I agree...

...but its hard to be a pro-trade progressive around here these days. Our fellows would rather seek protectionism at home and perpetual poverty for capital-poor but labor-rich developing countries deprived of their main comparative advantage by our closed borders.

[eridani]

53. Any country that is labor rich can readily become capital rich--

--because capital is made from labor. Labor and natural resources are the only sources of capital. All they have to do is to invest their labor in their own improvement instead of having its value stripmined by global corporations. See Amartya Sen's comparison of Kerala and China, for instance.

[whoneedstickets]

55. Sure, they'll just up and build...

...a textile plant out of bamboo stalks and mud bricks. I'm sure the industrial looms they craft out of bent sticks will quickly eclipse the technology in North Carolina.

And to the poster below, yes China was capital poor. On a per-capita basis VERY capital poor up until about the late 1980s when direct foreign investment began to grow as the Chinese government agreed to allow joint-venture export-oriented growth zones. Shit, you'd think some of the blow hards on this site would read something. Do your damn homework!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. I suggest you go to China and yes, be impressed by Shanghai, BUT

then go into the countryside of Anhui or the upper reaches of the Yellow River, or even the squatter settlements of Shanghai.

For many people, life is WORSE than it was under Communism, because they've lost their social safety net.

[whoneedstickets]

60. Inequality is always a problem with growth...

..but I dare say the poor live better in the US today than they did in the 18th century. I've been to China and have seen rural poverty. But trying to put China in some kind of economic-stasis to preserve a dream of an agrarian paradise isn't the solution either. How well off would those peasants be in 100 years plowing rice paddies with Oxen?

I swear, there is an implied but completely unexamined assumption in all this anti-trade bullshit that we'd all be BETTER off living in mud huts growing our own food in ponds fertilized by our excrement.

Yeah, to crib Churchill's point about democracy "capitalism is the worst way to organize an economy, except for all the others that have been tried and failed". I'm a Rawlsian, let markets work and help the lowest rung to live a decent life. That's the best we can do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

67. Sure, inequality is always a problem with growth, but there are ways to

alleviate it. One is by investing heavily in education, health care, and civilian infrastructure, which is precisely what the IMF and World Bank tell developing countries NOT to do. China's social safety net has disappeared. India never had one. Both countries have double-digit illiteracy, not our kind of illiteracy, but the kind that results from never having learned to read at all.

Japan and South Korea were both heavily protectionist and made the types of investments for human needs that today's industrializing countries are not making. Japan was first out of the gate with universal compulsory education phased in between 1870 and 1890. It had capital built up by its merchant class during a period of almost total isolation. Taiwan not only put through massive land reform but also required foreign companies to train locals for responsible jobs and to transfer all technology used in the plants so that the Taiwanese would be more than serfs.

There are ways to develop technology other than serving as a sweatshop for some richer country. (Incidentally, by the time the sweatshops came pouring in, China already had an industrial infrastructure, thanks to the Communists' obsession with factories and railroads. It wasn't all rice paddies by any means.)

Today's ideal corporate model is to have labor provided by the lowest bidder. Period. The corporate executives like to pretend that they're outsourcing call centers to India because of concern for India's eoncomy, but they're really doing it to please the shareholders, because dealing with Indian call centers pisses off customers to no end. They like to pretend that American workers are "greedy" and "not worth the money," while they themselves earn mulitmillion dollar bonuses for pushing papers and having meetings.

The two problems that REALLY hold Third World countries back are militarism (buy state of the art weapons for the army that your dictator uses mostly to torment minority groups and crush dissidents, even as your country's people are stuck in the middle ages) and corruption (siphon the foreign aid into your Swiss bank account). Solve those two problems, and you could buy some stability and generate a capital base for a country.

And by the way, it is utter strawman bullshit to accuse the anti-"free" trade side of being agrarian romantics.

[whoneedstickets]

73. So is the problem the corporations or the local governments?.

Most of the stuff you advocate involves human capital improving policies from developing countries. In many cases this can't occur because weak states lack the capacity to extract wealth from their own aristocracies to redistribute through social programs. Chavez is an example of one leader who has asserted the power of the state to tax the wealthy and break the domestic labor aristocracy of oil workers to help the peasantry, but few states with entrenched elites can do the same. South Korea could because the war essentially eliminated its domestic elites.

Indeed both Japan and SK benefited from some domestic protectionism but both grew through export-oriented strategies and the domestic protectionsim was largely anti-consumerist which encouraged higher levels of savings and capital accumulation for domestic investment (and since old habit die hard low levels of domestic consumption have plagued Japan in the 90's while abundant capital led to zero interest rates).

In any case, none of this changes my assertion that opening the US economy to trade from developing states (whatever the type) is a good thing. Yes it has costs that are too often borne by our underclass but that isn't only a result of trade but also a consequence of domestic policies that exacerbate the impact of poverty.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

74. You must be from some business-oriented think tank

or the international department of a bank, because that's how you come off in your writing style and attitudes.

I actually lived in Japan in the 1970s and have visited off and on since then for periods of up to three months since then. Japan had rather high prices relative to incomes in the 1970s, but the income equality was truly astounding. At the time, the unemployment rate was 2%, which kept the crime rate down, and there wasn't enough poverty that you could notice. Everyone was well-fed, literate, and healthy (well, they smoked and drank a lot, but they had First World standards of health). The only homeless people were obvious late-stage alcoholics.

Having lived in Japan during that time, I really wonder where you get the idea that domestic consumption was low. It's the original shop-till-you-drop nation. It was common to have a TV and a radio in every room in the house, and the amount of money spent on clothes and accessories, as well as the obligatory rounds of gift giving, was astounding.

These were the days when the U.S. was beginning to pressure Japan to open up its markets (despite the proliferation of American products and businesses) and to adopt "international" (i.e. U.S-style corporate) business practices.

I don't think that it's a coincidence that the "bubble" burst just as Japan began following American-style corporate practices (outsourcing, unstable employment) and allowing American big box stores to come in and devastate the small businesses that had provided good livings for generations. Yes, the bank scandals--the result of banks outsmarting themselves by trying to wiggle out of regulations--were a factor, but the banks' bad loans didn't become bad until businesses began failing en masse. Japan is following the U.S. in losing its distinctive local businesses and services to nationwide and international chains.

I wasn't able to go to Japan at all between 1991 and 2000, and the changes shocked me. There were large numbers of homeless living in parks and along riverbanks. Once-vital neighborhoods of small shops were half boarded-up. Young people had lost hope of ever establishing careers and were drifting along in part-time and temporary jobs. Unemployment was up to U.S. levels. Crime was up. Consumption fell not because "old habits die hard," but because people felt economically insecure. (I'm not guessing about that--that's what people told me.) In place of the old-style shops with somewhat expensive but still affordable domestically produced goods, there were chains of 100-yen shops full of imports from China and Vietnam.

I wonder if the successive administrations who pressured Japan into adopting U.S. corporate business models knew that it would result in a slowdown of the Japanese economy. Certainly they knew that the model has been so unsuccessful in the U.S. that the country has been the world's principal debtor nation for years.

[Elwood P Dowd]

75. He is a republican Lydia

"In any case, none of this changes my assertion that opening the US economy to trade from developing states (whatever the type) is a good thing. Yes it has costs that are too often borne by our underclass but that isn't only a result of trade but also a consequence of domestic policies that exacerbate the impact of poverty."

Almost the exact words of Newt Gingrich and dozens of other republicans.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

77. Good catch!

:thumbsup:

See my post #58.

[Elwood P Dowd]

80. There are a couple of others on this thread.

Look below at the picture of Smoot & Hawley. Repukes always love to use that. They've been doing it on the internet since the 90s. They pretend to be liberals, but always give themselves away when topics such as free trade show up on the forum. I can't believe the DU mods continue to be fooled by these people.

The pic on on post #66.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. Another suspicious passage:

I should reply, "Well its sure nice of you to support our western labor aristocracy at the expense of people who live in squalor. I'm sure your union bosses will reward you for defending that 36 hour work week with health care for a guy who puts bolts on lawnmowers while half the worlds population lives on a substance diet

See? Perfect illustration of #58! How could I have been so blind? :rofl:

Little does the poster know that I've been self-employed for 13 years.

[Elwood P Dowd]

82. Oh yes, I saw that one.

Pretty obvious, isn't it?

[mhatrw]

90. That is so fucked up.

Here's how "the markets" work: rob the poor and give to the rich.

You would gladly return us all to the days of the robber barons just so some third world nations can get consumerized?

[eridani]

63. I did. Read about Taiwan and S Korea

They developed almost entirely from internal capital.

[whoneedstickets]

65. Actually..

..they both support my point as they had preferential access to the US markets for reasons of geostrategy and national security. While Taiwan had considerable capital (moved from pre-revolutionary China) it has consistently ranked among the top sites for foreign direct investment over the last 30 years. You're wrong about South Korea though, it benefited from US military activity and aid since there was virtually no domestic Korean capital after the war. South Korea's development was aided by a strong (US supported) state which could make demands on investors seeking to build plants in SK with more open access to the US economy.

[eridani]

76. Taiwan's biggest developmental leaps were well before 1977

Their access to our markets was jolly well not reciprocated by equivalent access to their markets or significant foreign investment before 1977, a situation dicated by our military policy, as you have observed. By 1977, they could tolerate foreign investment without having to worry about foreigners having enough power to repatriate the lion's share of profits. This lucky happenstance also allowed Taiwan to put through its Land to the Tiller program, similar to programs in Central and South America that usually get their advocates disembowelled and beheaded by thugs trained at the School of the Americas.

Korea benefitted from access to our markets without reciprocation for military reasons as well. The chaebol are entirely native, and got raised capital just fine without foreign assistance until very recently. Its markets, during the period of its highest developmental progress, were totally closed. You couldn't even get a Japanese manga comic book there, let alone a Japanese car.

In sum, both countries were able to develop because, for geopolitcal reasons, the US was not able to force on them the developmental models that are so good at impoverishing the rest of the world.

[Leopolds Ghost]

89. Your contempt for the technological prowess of other people's is noted.

Apparently you feel that left to their own devices, without the benefit of American technology, "inferior" peoples would not be able to build their own factories "out of bamboo and mud bricks" the way the (Protectionist) Japanese did in the 1800s.

The Europeans spent centuries waging wars to prevent independent countries as diverse as Uganda and Japan from developing a domestic industrial base, which would turn them into both a military and economic threat to (mostly British) hegemony.

Why do you think Thucydides and the Greeks were so popular in Edwardian Britain? They modeled their -- and our -- naval empire on the Athenian Empire, another oppressive free-trade confederation in which one country monopolized all the manufactured goods and, in the name of "democracy" exported tyrranny to "less enlightened" city states. Have you read Thucydides?

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. Have you read about the "Shantytown Tourism" in Bombay, India? Do you know what portion of our goods

ARE manufactured in mud huts built by the poorest of the poor?
Denim factories, pottery, steel mills, etc? All built by the poor,
out of recycled materials, by necessity, without permission?

We export these "jobs your fellow North Carolinians don't want to do"
to places where people actually do it by hand, like the US did under
British colonization. And the government of India wants to tear down
these shanties in order to build condo's for the rich and "improve
its image".

[Lydia Leftcoast]

105. Yup, I saw things like that in China, too

People making cheap junk by hand in grubby little shops that opened onto the street.

[Leopolds Ghost]

112. What you need to realise is that those people built all that stuff themselves and make your products

Here in the US.

They are not defensless, helpless brown people who can only survive on the export market. They are enterprising and trying to survive as best they can since the US EXPORT SUBSIDIES ON GRAIN put their farms and fields out of business (which is why we, like Zambia, import grain.)

The export market is designed to oppress them just as surely as the British Empire was designed to enrich Britain by creating a vast worldwide labor pool of cottage industry workers.

[ChromeFoundry]

54. Are you calling nations like China "Capital-Poor"?

wow, it's burried deep!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

56. Suggested viewing: Life and Debt

A documentary about how "free" trade "improved" life in Jamaica.

Oh, and by the way, not ONE country has "free traded" its way to prosperity. They've "free traded" their way to vast gaps between rich and poor (e.g. China and India, both of which have fabulously wealthy industrialists and peasants living in medieval conditions) or to worsening poverty (e.g. Mexico) but not to full prosperity.

Look closely and you'll see that all the success stories that the "free" traders cite employed protectionism at some point along the way. That includes the U.S.

[whoneedstickets]

59. You're right to an extent..

..yes, the successfully developing economies like South Korea (which came from NOTHING after the war to be come the world's 8th largest economy) did use some level of domestic protection, state control over foreign investment, technology sharing laws and other strategies to prevent the repatriation of capital back to the investor states. I didn't make the claim that unfettered free trade for developing states was a good plan, but I AM in favor of the US opening its markets to foreign competition and imports from developing countries. To do otherwise is to insist the poor stay poor.

I had a chance one to attend a dinner for an African ambassador to the US. He gave a great speech and after I asked the question "If there was one thing western economies could do to elevate the standard of living in Africa, and political will and money were no object what would you ask for." As a liberal I expected to hear about aid and the dismal % of GNP the US provides in developmental assistance. He shocked me by saying WITHOUT HESITATION : "Trade with us! Let us sell our agricultural goods to you! Let us attract your investment!" He explained the benefits of trade from his side in detail. I've been a free-trader ever since.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Here's my alternative to the current system:

Yes, let poor countries sell their goods to us, but not in the way it's typically done, with multinationals buying up coffee beans or bananas from plantations owned by rich people who pay their workers pennies per hour. That just gives the usual fat cats more money to put in their Swiss bank accounts. Give preferential treatment to Fair Trade products, so that the bulk of the money actually goes to small farmers, the people who really need the money. Most of the agricultural products bought from the Third World are tropical and can't be grown in the U.S. anyway. The money might as well go to the peasants instead of to the types of people who are appointed as ambassadors from Third World countries.

The MOST beneficial thing that could ever happen to the Third World would be an agreement by First World countries to give NO military aid to anyone. The old excuse used to be that these weapons were for "fighting Communism," but in fact, they were always used to oppress their own citizens. Far too many countries have state of the art weaponry while the majority of their people live in cardboard and tin shacks.

Another beneficial move would be for the IMF and the World Bank to stop forcing countries that receive aid to cut health and education. They also need to stop encouraging the replacement of food crops with cash crops.

Furthermore, I would form free trade blocs among countries of similar economic status and allow free movement not only of capital but also of people throughout the blocs. For example, the Central American countries plus Mexico would be a logical bloc, as would the Arab countries of North Africa. Countries would be free to assess tariffs on products from outside their blocs. This would encourage what Jane Jacobs called "import replacement," moving from colonial-style dependence on imports to acquiring the capability to make their own products. The U.S. could be in a bloc with Canada and Europe, but not with Mexico, since the current arrangement has done NOTHING to promote the welfare of the average Mexican, besides leading to huge job losses in the U.S.

Corporate-style "free" trade is a kind of superstition. It clearly doesn't do what it's supposed to, but its advocates keep insisting that it does, or at least that it would, if everyone was nice and well-intentioned.

[whoneedstickets]

70. There are some good idea here...

..preferential access for fair-trade good would be a cheap policy shift that could benefit small producers and coupled with property recognition in developing states could build an agrarian middle class.

Free trade areas among developing states is already a trend but many still want access to the Western markets. Import replacement sounds too much like import substitution on a regional rather than country level and this has never worked (except to create inferior products--like the Brazilian attempt to create a domestically produced harvesting combine/tractor--that makes domestic producers who use them less efficient than external competitors forcing more protectionism for these inferior products and reducing exports ad infinitum..).

Developing countries need access to current technology. Joint ventures with western corporations that result in technology transfer, investment in human capital etc. has been shown to be the best model for growth.


BTW Mexico's problems stem from the fact that they tried too quickly to climb the wage ladder and didn't match demands with productivity growth. The Chinese are cheaper, AND more productive so why should anyone bother to invest in Mexico? Notice Mexico started to decline when China joined the WTO. Mexican preferential market access wasn't enough to make them competitive when their labor poor is poorly educated. They also have huge corruption issues. I'm not sure Weber was wrong when he said culture had something to do with development potential.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

72. Or did Mexico start to decline not because it was "too expensive" but

because China was cheaper?

And what's this "trying to climb the wage ladder too quickly"? It means that the workers were trying to not to be poor. Try telling the workers in the maquiladoras that their wages are too high.

[bread_and_roses]

115. It's another clue. Can't have those brown people wanting decent wages, can we? (n/t)

[mhatrw]

96. "They tried to climb the wage ladder too quickly" when

there were still other, even poorer nations to exploit!

How dare they! Thank God the Chinese overlords are totalitarian mercantilists who won't stand for such a thing!

[mhatrw]

92. Yes. The Final Solution. n/t

[Jcrowley]

19. It is impossible to awaken

those who are pretending to be asleep.

[David Dunham]

20. The Democratic Party has been pro-free trade since the 1800s.

[Elwood P Dowd]

21. David Ricardo's free trade or the current scam masquerading as free trade?

Which is it?

[Jcrowley]

27. Yep n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

22. where did we find

tainted gluten in human food? Outside of the pure hysteria here on DU, I haven't seen any such reports.

[OhioChick]

28. While you're on the subject of free trade...

Did you see this in LBN today?

South Korea, U.S. agree last-minute trade deal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2790322

[scarletwoman]

29. Goddam people! Why am I only the 4th recommend on this thread? Wake up!

Read this thread: Globalization and Free Trade:Your Opinion?

Corporate globalization is DEATH.

SW

[BeHereNow]

30. I was wondering where you were...

:hi: :loveya: :hug:

[scarletwoman]

41. LOL! Oh, I'm around. I only rarely feel aroused enough to post, however.

I'm a constant lurker, though. :D

:hi: :hi: :loveya: :hug: :loveya: :hi: :hi:
sw

[BeHereNow]

43. Big kiss to you~!

MMMMMMMMMM-wha!

BHN

[scarletwoman]

111. Ha! You're just trying to arouse me!

:evilgrin:

MMMMMMMMMM-wha! back atcha!

sw
:hug:

[G_j]

79. great minds you know...

:hi:


love and peace

[G_j]

78. out of the ethers ... I found it

and K & R'd it!

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

110. Hooray! G_J! How wonderful to find YOU appearing out of the ether!

:loveya:

sw

[brentspeak]

32. kicked and rec'd

:kick:

[many a good man]

35. Wake up about how free trade compromises national security

Remember AT&T getting busted for outsourcing the manufacture of high tech military equipment to Chinese sweatshops where they can steal the technology that saves our troops lives? They're trading our national security for profits and greed.

[OhioChick]

36. A good read on China:

China's Spying Overwhelms U.S. Counterintelligence (From LBN)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2790829

[BeHereNow]

38. Let us not forget...KATRINA LEUNG...

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

BHN

[BeHereNow]

39. Let us not forget...KATRINA LEUNG...

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

BHN

[BeHereNow]

37. Yeah! Support the troops! Sell their asses to the highest bidder!

The best Twilight Zone episode could not
BEGIN to rival our current reality, no?
BHN

[Elwood P Dowd]

44. We should salute the many dems who have been fighting this

for several years. A few names to remember would be Marcy Kapture, Byron Dorgan, Dennis Kucinich, and Dick Gephardt.

[ChromeFoundry]

46. here, here...

:toast:

[Elwood P Dowd]

49. You should be proud of Marcy.

I remember when she had that Sunday radio show that the Chuck Harder stations carried back in the 90s. She did everything in her power to stop NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and all the others.

[drm604]

50. Did I miss something?

Now we find some of the same imported crap is in human food.

Do we know for certain now that the contaminated gluten has gotten into human food? I haven't heard about that. It appears to be a strong possibility, but I haven't heard anything beyond that.

[baldguy]

51. The problem is all the trade deals ever negotiated only deal with half the equation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. One of these days, I'm going to write an essay about

all the ways conservatives in both parties excuse their greed by claiming that they're being greedy out of concern for the poor.

"Free" trade is one item on a list that also includes opposition to the minimum wage, school vouchers, privatization of public services, tax cuts, laying people off, war, and opposition to mass transit.

[whoneedstickets]

62. Now I'm getting ticked off...

how is it that saying "We need to allow developing counties unfettered access to the world's largest market so they can begin to attract enough capital to import technology to kick-start their development" means I should be slandered with a claim that this position automatically implies support for any of these policies.

I should reply, "Well its sure nice of you to support our western labor aristocracy at the expense of people who live in squalor. I'm sure your union bosses will reward you for defending that 36 hour work week with health care for a guy who puts bolts on lawnmowers while half the worlds population lives on a substance diet"

Sorry, my sympathy for labor in the US died when half their membership voted for Reagan.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

69. Good Lord, it's not either-or

You have more straw men than a video store full of Wizard of Oz DVDs.

Being virtual slaves for foreign companies is not the way to prosperity. Buying ag products from fat cats who work their field hands for pennies an hour is not the way for the U.S. to help foreign countries.

And you'll have to look long and hard to find a blue collar worker in the U.S. who works a 36-hour week with health care for "putting bolts on lawnmowers." I bet it's easier to find a corporate executive who gets multimillion dollar bonuses for making his company "lean and mean" by firing masses of workers and outsourcing to sweatshops in countries where the army (funded by U.S. military aid) will take care of any union activists.

(You think I'm kidding? Back in the 1970s, Third World countries used to advertise in the business sections of U.S. newspapers about their lack of minimum wage laws, lack of environmental and safety laws, and banning of unions.)

It is precisely BECAUSE I am concerned about the effects on ordinary people, both here and abroad, that I am against the current system of "free" trade.

[Greyhound]

83. Typical reich-wing horse shit. First frame the argument as a false choice

and ignore the actual practices and consequences. The third-world workers get screwed, the consumers of the products produced get screwed, while the corporations literally get away with mass murder and slavery.

Great system you're backing there.

[RB TexLa]

66. Yeah, let's dust these guys off

[Elwood P Dowd]

68. We're not talking about Smoot-Hawley, and you know it.

That is pathetic on your part. Grow up!!!

[Pachamama]

84. I agree completely with your concerns....

I'm really worried and I think that it sadly will take thousands and thousands of dead Americans before most people would "wake up" and then the question would be how fast would the politicians react. I could see it now... Soon it will be revealed that a company like Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) supplied wheat gluten into the human food supply, then the politicians who aren't in their pocket will try to act and pass a law, that will become Bush's 3rd Veto, after his Stem Cell veto and veto on the Iraq War funding bill.

Your absolutely right about not just wheat gluten, but the imported fruits and vegetables that may have been irrigated with sewage water and banned pesticides and herbicides. I wonder often how many products we buy to feed to our kids (ie. Apple Sauce) contains pesticide laden apples from China or elsewhere. But since most foods don't contain a "country of origin label", we will never know.

Right now, I'm feeling like partially hydrogenated fats and corn syrup are the least of our worries when buying food. Just today alone, I went to the store and started looking even closer at labels. I couldn't find one single bread that didn't include wheat gluten. I'm buying a bread machine tommorrow and am going to start making bread myself. I'm going to try to buy as much as possible local and cook and prepare things myself. All these pre-prepared foods in supermarkets etc. contain who-knows what from who-knows where. It may require more time on my behalf to shop, cook and prepare, but at this point, I think the health of my family depends on it.

I don't call it "free trade" - I call it unregulated trade and trade out of control....and I think the consequences are going to be paid by many people in a terrible way....

:cry:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. That's why I don't buy supermarket bread or baked goods

They're all full of unhealthy products, like bleached flour, and artificial chemicals whose names one can't pronounce.

I'm lucky to have a food co-op in my neighborhood, as well as a bakery that uses wholesome ingredients.

[robcon]

86. Free trade treaties: the best economics and the best politics.

Ever since we have ramped up out imports from China the U.S. has had the strongest and longest period of economic expansion in our history (from 1993 to today, with the exception of the shortest recession in U.S. history in 2002.)

That's not a coincidence... basic economic theory would suggest strong economic growth from expansion of trade.

The anti-free trade crowd can't point out any facts, so they attack strawmen - as if tainted dog food couldn't happen except for out trade with China. It's sad to read such reactionary views on DU.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. Economic expansion in the sense of the gap between rich and poor

widening, huh?

:rofl:

[mhatrw]

98. It's all based on debt and you know it.

People are borrowing against their "home equity" to pay for some worthless Chinese crap and their outrageous health care bills. That's the sum total of our economic expansion if you take out the top 1% that has gotten filthy rich off the "free trade" and "Homeland Security" scams.

[Elwood P Dowd]

100. Real wages for median income workers are falling

Income for the top 1% has increased dramatically. The share of the nation's wealth for the top 1% has doubled. The share of the nation's wealth for median income workers and below is falling. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. This is what you support.

The number of union workers is declining. The number of workers without health care benefits is increasing. This is what you support.

Our small economic growth the past few years has been the result of massive deficit spending. Our budget and current account deficits now run 1.2 trillion dollars a year and rising. This is what you support.

The policies you support are destroying this country.

[Selatius]

106. It's sad certain DUers neglect to mention stagnating wages during that period cited.

The rich made gains in leaps and bounds as far as real income, but for middle class and poor people, their wages stagnated or declined.

[BeHereNow]

116. WHAT are you smoking?

Can I have some?
BHn

[Leopolds Ghost]

93. How many people here have read Thucydides? How many have seen DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE?

More comments after I hear a show of hands.

[Leopolds Ghost]

113. I guess no one has.

Watch Darwin's Nightmare (documentary)

or read up on the Athenian Empire (the
original free-trade naval mercantile
empire) to learn about why free trade
benefits importers of finished goods only.

Until then, don't yammer on about a subject
folks haven't learned up on.

(it is especially important that people
see DARWIN'S NIGHTMARE)

[bighart]

94. Free Trade

Didn't NAFTA pass under Clinton?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. Yup, but you have to understand that

unlike the way Republicans adore and worship George W. Bush unquestioningly, many Democrats dislike Clinton for precisely that reason.

[Elwood P Dowd]

101. George H.W. Bush cooked up NAFTA

Carla Hills negotiated the agreement and old man Bush signed it. Clinton then pushed the implementing legislation through congress in 1993. Most democrats voted against it. The Republicans overwhelmingly supported it. It was one of Clinton's biggest mistakes.

[rman]

109. Yes. He has some exlplaining to do

as has Gore, BTW.

Both should have a chat with Clinton's former adviser on economics, Joseph Stiglitz.


- former chief economist at the World Bank
- former economic adviser to Clinton
- Nobel Prize for Economy
- author of "Globalization and Its Discontents" and "Making Globalization Work"
- professor at Columbia Business School
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Stiglitz

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz's Keynote Address at the University of San Francisco Securities
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6908101108622328125&q=Stiglitz

[BeHereNow]

117. Welcome to DU and PLEASE do look up the membership list of...

The Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.
It will bring so much more clarity in regard to what you are watching unfold.
BHN

[The2ndWheel]

97. Can you really stop something that has thousands of years

of momentum behind it? As long as we have the energy required to continue the process, nothing will halt.

[Leopolds Ghost]

114. Thousands of years of free trade? No, sorry. Industrial Nation-state was built on mercantilism

And industrial policy (tariffs).

To see what a modern society is like with open borders and an export-oriented industry, move to the Wild West (Butte, Montana)
or the south shore of Lake Victoria (Tanzania, where DARWIN'S
NIGHTMARE was filmed.)

(Search the internet for Darwin's Nightmare to learn more about
this incredible and disturbing documentary film about free trade.)

For a free trade empire, see the Athenian Empire or British Empire,
both of which outmaneuvered their mercantile rivals by creating a
successful system of employment and exploitation in the colonies
in which low-paying jobs (not just plantation work) was exported
to the colonies, and finished goods were made in the home country
and exported back to the colonies, creating a "company town"
economy of perpetual colonial debt, which is exactly what we have
in the Third World.

[lostinacause]

103. The problem is not so much free trade but rather free trade in a vacuum.

There is very little question that free trade, along with other policies that are deemed economically efficient, concentrate wealth. At the same time these policies generate a great deal of wealth. The growth rates in India and China are just one example of this (though again there is a general concentration of wealth). It seems to me that the obvious solution is not to prevent the implementation of efficient programs but instead when implementing these programs also look at implementing programs that help to improve the standard of living of the people who don't benefit or get harmed by these programs. We have seen a great deal of efficient programs implemented in America and around the world in the last 20 years but we have not seen effort to even out the wealth distribution using methods that are consistent with the programs that are currently being implemented.

[Elwood P Dowd]

104. Here is some info about John Edward's stand on (fake) free trade.

From the GD Politics board today.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3194983


From Edwards website:

Big Idea: Fair Trade

Why are the experts wrong so often about the impact of "free trade"?

What is wrong with "fair trade" agreements? Why is it that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold as a job creator but turned out to be a destroyer of jobs both North and South of the border?

Its very simple. The arguments for these so-called "free trade" agreements are about how the agreements work in a make-believe world. The make-believe world is different from the real world in very important ways. So when set loose in the real world, the predictions turn out to be false.

<more>

[bigmonkey]

107. Another example of the old joke.

"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is."

[rman]

108. "Banked into Submission" - Free Trade 101

the globalizationist guide to developing poverty

The Pinky Show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_3K1PCZHE0

[Tom Joad]

118. They know damn well what they are doing. They are serving their constituency

the top 2% that contribute substantial amounts to their campaigns. The contributers stay rich, the congresspeople stay in office, everyone is happy... except workin people in the US, except working people abroad... but they don't count.