General Discussion

eridani

(51,907 posts) Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:42 AM Apr 2016

Dean Baker: The Question Is Not "Free Trade" and Globalization, It Is Free Trade--

--and Globalization Designed to Screw Workers

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/27/question-not-free-trade-and-globalization-it-free-trade-and-globalization-designed

The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.)

Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing workers to international competition, but not doctors and lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development. There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and economists.

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dean Baker: The Question Is Not "Free Trade" and Globalization, It Is Free Trade-- (Original Post) eridani Apr 2016 OP

Great article, eridani. Thanks for posting it. pampango Apr 2016 #1

There is no way in hell that trade rules necessarily have to favor corporations eridani Apr 2016 #2

Agreed. There has to be some type of neutral enforcement mechanism for any pampango Apr 2016 #3

Check the Yellow Pages sometime 1939 Apr 2016 #4

pampango

(24,692 posts)

1. Great article, eridani. Thanks for posting it.

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:38 AM

Apr 2016

Free trade and globalization are not inherently bad - witness modern progressive countries - it is how they are designed and implemented that is bad.

Likewise, no trade and isolationism are not inherently good - witness our own 1920's pre-FDR era - if that isolationism is designed to screw workers.

eridani

(51,907 posts)

2. There is no way in hell that trade rules necessarily have to favor corporations

Reply to pampango (Reply #1)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:40 AM

Apr 2016

ISDS is a corporate attack on elected governments, period.

pampango

(24,692 posts)

3. Agreed. There has to be some type of neutral enforcement mechanism for any

Reply to eridani (Reply #2)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:29 AM

Apr 2016

international agreement to work. They won't work if each country gets to decide if it is living up to its treaty obligations of if only the US government gets to be the 'decider'.

1939

(1,683 posts)

4. Check the Yellow Pages sometime

Reply to eridani (Original post)

Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:34 AM

Apr 2016

"Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing workers to international competition, but not doctors and lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development. There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and economists."

There are a lot of doctors in the US whose last names are not Smith, Carson, or Zubriski and are obviously overseas imports.

Reply to this discussion