What is the alternative to free trade?

A lot of DUers hate Free Trade. So let me ask you this. Here is a set of questions that I'd like answered.

Should everyone be working in factories forever? Secondly, is the goal to keep the US permanently an economy of industry?

I just want to know what the alternative is. I've seen for years people protest NAFTA and other treaties. I've seen what the alternative solution is. What is the anti-free trade vision exactly?

where markets are opened in a manner that protects workers at home and abroad.

also it SHOULD NOT operate ABOVE the rules of the home nation NOR supercede it's own democracy or operate in secret.

in a nutshell

peace

Pilgrim. That's it!

...rather stupid policy on our part that allows the playing field to severely tilt in one direction or another is what needs to be addressed.

A case in point is the issue of H1B and L1 visas. Congress passed laws under the Clinton Admin that allowed foreign workers in to the US to cover a specific technical need of reasonably known duration (Y2K). Unfortunately the legislation carried no sunset provision, so now we have tons of US workers laid off, but we are still admitting thousands of technical workers under a Visa program we no longer need and can't afford.

Sure, under free trade we give other countries a chance, in this case, for technology and knowledge transfer. Such an opportunity, however, does not need to come at the expense of our economy over the long haul.

Later,
JM

I don't think people here hate free trade per se (like Democracy, we should really try it some time), it's the way it's used as a club for the powerful and exploits the poorest of the poor.

The World Bank and the IMF are perfect examples of the monied exploiting and imposing misery on populations as the few get stinking rich. No water raising all boats here.

http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PII.jsp?topicid=111

I bet you know about Cochabamba.

One part of it is the Free Trade organizations are staggeringly un-Democratic, and their power to regulate trade is often used to interfere in a nations ability to govern itself (although they leave us alone, usually and unsurprisingly). It's also frustrating to watch the IMF used as a tool to force "free trade" procedures, such as forcing a nation to abandon social programs or forcing it to bust up unions.

I suppose another part of it is the failure of business and government to adequately plan for the end of Free Trade. I mean if we are going to allow corporations to unemploye hundres of thousands of factory workers, well, it kind of puts the lie to that whole "Poor people just don't want to work" mantra the conservatives love to say.

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

I'm curious what other kinds of jobs we would put people in? Do you think it's actually feasible to have a predominantly white collar economy?

A lot of people protesting free trade are protesting the fact that US companies are shipping jobs overseas due to cheap labor and less oversight on working conditions, the exploitation of another countries resources and the fact that when companies do this, they are not penalized for it.

You see it tends to be the case that countries specialize in doing certain industries well and trading in those things. it is better for a country such as Britain to specialize in financial services which we are world leaders in then to try and mass produce shoes when developing countries can do that kind of job better then we can for a cheaper price.

This logic was first noticed by David Ricardo and is known as the theory of comparitive advantage. It states that it is better for countries to specialize in those industries they have a comparative advantage in and to trade freely with other countries who do other industries better. If a country tries to act as a jack of all trades then it will most likely end up being a master of none.

considering you have third world countries putting cars and other industrial items together in factories. Unless you really think they have a comparative advantage in technology

today's corportations definitely don't abide by Mr. Ricardo's logic, they go by the logic of wht's cheaper

The cheapness is the very thing that gives a countries industry a comparative advantage.

Besides, not every industry needs to be high technology. Agricultre is a case in point and more often than not the agricultre trade of third world countries is restricted by measures as the EU common agricultural policy enacted by rich countries.

The United States is certainly better at white collar related industries than third world countries. The United States is also probably better at manufacturing than third world countries. But if the US is 'more better' at white collar services than they are at manufacturing, then they have a comparative advantage in the white collar industries. You can have an absolute advantage in something without having a comparative advantage in it also.

The solution to the problem in America isn't to keep crappy, backbreaking manufacturing jobs in this country. It's to make sure people get the proper education to get the good jobs. It would be great if nobody in America had to work in a factory.

And it's silly to suggest it.

1. Not every one is mentally equipped for white collar work. That's a fact.

2. Factory work is generally easier (physically) than most manual labor jobs such as janitorial services, burger flipping, construction, waiting tables, stocking shelves, pumping gas, fixing cars, dock workers, fishermen, etc. It's tedious work a lot of the time, but it's hardly backbreaking labor.

Unskilled factory work is good honest work that usually is a step up from many of the jobs I mentioned and at the end of the day you need those people more than they need you pushing your pencil at work.

And it ain't like your sweet white collar job is all that safe either. When we saw the mass exodus of manufacturing jobs from the US we were told, no promised, by people like you that we didn't need those nasty filty hard factory jobs that kept many towns I grew up in alive. We would all get nice clean service related pencil pushing jobs to replace it and now those jobs are going overseas as well and there is NOTHING...I REPEAT: NOTHING AT ALL to replace those service jobs being lost to third world workers once again.

My personal belief is that attitudes like yours come from a sense of hard manual work being beneath you and a sense of entitlement. The fact of the matter is that you are merely making excuses for corporate greed and exploitation of third world workers because you are deeply afraid you might actually have to do manual labor for once in your life.

1. Not every one is mentally equipped for white collar work. That's a fact. Why not? I know people love to call Americans stupid, but I think that is a product of neglect in our educational system than the inherent ability of Americans.

2. But we can have people in other countries do factory work. We can't have them building our homes and fixing our cars.

Why is it that anybody in America, in 2003, is unskilled? We need to figure out why it is that we spend thousands of dollars to educate kids and then they end up unable to be more than unthinking cogs in a machine. We need to train anybody so that they will come up with the next advance that will create the new jobs. Untrained, unskilled workers in factories have never created jobs. As bad as the current job market is, the vast majority of college graduates are still able to find good jobs. The challenge for this country is to figure out how to get everybody the training and knowledge to create and take advantage of the next big thing.

Because of too many situations like this one that I have seen many, many times:

Bobbie Sue Jailbait gets knocked up by Bobby Joe Whitetrash while she is still in high school and they decide to get married and she drops out of school to raise the kids while Bobby goes off to work for a roofer to support the family. Bobby Joe gets busted for a bag of weed and gets sent off to jail for a couple of years and Bobbie Sue is left with no one to help her raise her kids and no skills to get a decent job and no money to get skills and pay for child care and support them in the meantime, so Bobbie Sue gets a job as a waitress and is dead fucking tired at the end of the day and the manager keeps changing her shift so night classes are out. By the time Bobby Joe gets out of jail, Bobbie Sue has lost most of her basic skills that she needs to get into a decent college and the cycle continues.

It's called life. It happens.

There are literally millions of stories like that. Bad luck, bad genes, lack of decent parents, you name it. I grew up around people like that. In rural Georgia it was generally accepted that you either went to college or went into the service or went to work in one of the local textile mills. And life was pretty good for the majority of those factory workers so many people seem to devalue now. It paid enough that they could get a small house and maybe make a better life for their kids and maybe retire. It was hard work, hot work, but most importantly it was GOOD stable honest work for most and that was what mattered. This attitude I see in a couple of people that such work is beneath them and any American is insulting and elitist.

Personally, given the choice between playing office politics with a bunch of backstabbing paper pushers with their noses in the air sipping lattes, worrying about some office MBA who think you are dirt taking out his lack of penis size on everyone in the office, and a good honest decent paying assembly line job with a bunch of down to earth people who don't pretend that manual work is anathema, I would prefer the latter.

Personally, given the choice between playing office politics with a bunch of backstabbing paper pushers with their noses in the air sipping lattes, worrying about some office MBA who think you are dirt taking out his lack of penis size on everyone in the office, and a good honest decent paying assembly line job with a bunch of down to earth people who don't pretend that manual work is anathema, I would prefer the latter.

Are you seriously trying to say that kind of shit doesn't happen on the factory floor?

I remember when I was at uni I worked evenings and nights sorting post at Royal Mail. Those of us at the bottom seemed to be doing little else other than bitching and backstabbing each other. Add to that poisonous industrial relations and you do not have a happy place to work. That was a blue collar job and that had way more of that type of stuff going on than in the office job I currently have. Partly it is what always happens when you have a large group of people working together. The management was just as bad but that's the kind of workplace I was in at Royal Mail. That does not mean to say that the office I currently work in is one constant bitch-fest one bit does it as your post would seemingly assume.

But the bopttom line is this, you are making some really outrageously general assumptions. Life is not always that black and white.

...work is some kind of magical utopia and blue collar factory work is something akin to the eighth circle of Dante's Inferno.

And I was addressing the elitist, erroneous and stupid notion that factory work is somehow "beneath" us civilized first world people.

that just as equally you do get those from time to time who view white collar work as the spawn of yuppie satan and blue collar work as the be-all-and-end-all of employment possibilities for the masses. I remember this sort of attitude being very prevelent in the part of Britain where I grew up for instance. However, thing's are not that simple in the slightest.

There are attitudes on both sides. I was more taken aback by the notion that we should just let all the blue collar factory jobs exit the country because we don't really need those jobs and the "we are better than that" anyway attitude. I have seen far too many people left destitute by that notion and many within my own family. If we aren't willing to stand together to defend our jobs whether they be blue collar, white collar, service or production, then we have already lost this battle and now we are just coasting to a halt.

We need a diverse economy and society to be successful and stable and content. Not a total white collar society or total blue collar society or total agrarian society.

They haven't? I know entire communities that exist because of unskilled labor that you seem so dismissive of.

Let's look at Hicktown, Georgia as an example.

1. Walter Hickman opens a factory in Hicktown, Georgia. He pays his workers a fair wage and treats them well for the work they do. He hires 2000 workers to help make shirts.

2. The employees of Hickman industries use their pay to hire teachers, doctors, lawyers, internet service providers, shop keepers, grocers, plumbers, line men, electricians, homebuilders, road pavers, police, firemen, delivery drivers, janitors, waiters, waitresses, cooks, florists, priests, department stores, etc.....

Take away those unskilled workers in Hickman Industries and you have gutted the entire economy.

If Walter Hickman never opens that factory, then the entire service economy in Hicktown goes away. A town full of unskilled workers won't create jobs unless somebody like Walter Hickman comes in and creates these jobs for them. Innovation is needed for new jobs. Innovation requires skills.

You think Walter Hickman exists in a vacuum?

Could he have made his company a success without the help of those willing to do the unskilled labor in his factory? Walter Hickman can be as innovative as he wants but he ain't gonna become the number one supplier of his product without his workers.

And that is where we differ in philosophy. You seem to believe that all things come from the one innovator, but I see the larger picture that the group is what made the company successful, not the individual.

Or looking at a different way, a society needs a leader, but it needs followers as well. There is symbiosis that exists that you fail to acknowledge in your assertion that we can all conform to your "we can all be white collar workers" idealism. In other words, it takes a village. An engineer may have an innovative idea to build a rocket to make to the moon, but someone is going to have to have fabricate the metal for rocket, work the machinery that refines the fuel, build the computers that control it, and clean the shit out of the toilets for those who are working toward that goal or NOTHING is going be accomplished. Henry Ford was an innovator, but without his workers, he was nothing more than some schmuck with a good idea and he understood that.

Comprende?

get back to us. This attitude reminds me of the attitude of royalty, as if the executive is the state, the boss is the company. It doesn't work that way. L'estate c'est moi, really!

Not everyone has the ability to be educated to have a good white collar job. So who is going to clean the offices, where these white collar jobs exist? Isn't their work as valuable as a white collar worker's toil?

Everybody needs a job and everybody needs to make a living wage, but they excel in different capacities which comes together to make a whole society.

I am all for everyone being educated to the extent they are capable of learning. They should have access to that education because of their ability to learn and not their ability to pay. Imagine if Mr.Bush hadn't gone to Yale and Harvard, but if some deserving immigrant's son or daughter who had the intelligence and ability to be President, had instead.

i am reluctant to answer you but i will.

you can classify me as being anti-free trade because i am.

what i am not is anti-Fair Trade. Trade mind you is not the problem.

Should everyone be working in factories forever? no but i don't see how we get away from 'factory' work. We can't survive on a purely service economy, you need both. And i resent the use of 'factory' as a dirty word, as if that was such a terrible thing, a spot on the person. what about the man who starts a small industry business, should he feel ashamed? NO. where the shame comes in is when the man can't survive because his big big competitor has gone overseas for cheap labor and he loses his business because he can't compete. and where do his employees go?

it is hard to answer these questions though, because they are surface questions and do not get to the heart of the matter.
unfettered Corporate control and greed is the problem.

and writes about it in an easily accessible manner. Here's a Google link on this topic with plenty of articles to answer your questions.

http://www.google.com/search?q=naomi+klein+free+trade&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

As a poster stated above, it's not so much an issue of free trade as it is one of fair trade.

The problem is that the rhetorical device called "Free Trade" leads one to assume that it happens in a libertarian paradise, where self-responsible independent agents conduct business in an above-board atmosphere of complete information, free of coercion or collusion or confusion or delusion.

And that just doesn't happen. Instead, international bankers make secret deals with the political and financial elites of third world countries to do things like legislate exceptions to environmental or labor laws, or privatize their utilities, which allow all the money people to skim carloads of profit, while leaving the majority of the populace demonstrably worse off.

I once got to go to Indonesia, which as you probably know consists of a thousand-odd islands (and practiced the purest version of crony capitalism this side of Marcos's Phillipines), and I spent a couple days on the island of Lombok, just off the eastern point of Bali. The powers that be decided that Lombok was going to be the next hip Pacific resort destination, and had just made deals with the Western hotel chains to put up huge luxury hotels on the beach. Meanwhile, the fishermen who'd used that beach for generations got kicked out. The story was that they could now apply for jobs at the hotels and enter the glorious new cash economy-- but in fact there were skills they had to have (like speaking English) that your typical fisherman never had to learn before. Plus, to work for a handful of rupiah per day, and then have to spend those rupiah on the fish you used to be able to catch on your own, does not leave you better off: it makes you a wage slave. In practice, a lot of these guys decided they'd be better off trying to sell things to the tourists-- and that meant the hotels ended up hiring armed guards to defend their chunks of beach against vendors of hand-carved fisherman knicknacks and ersatz Rolex watches. (Aside: who supplies these cheesy counterfeit watches to every third world tourist destination in the world? Now *there's* a growth industry in the glorious new free trade world!)

I would like to say more, but they actually want me to do some work here. Just look up "Pareto optimal" in any decent economics text and tell me how free trade, *as currently implemented*, is supposed to achieve it. (Extra credit if you also use "zero-sum game.")

It's not a dirty word!

tarrifs, regulations, and incentives for buying American...help our workers first.

and they hurt poor folks the most because they spend most of their income on necessities.


And if we put a tarrif on another country's goods what is going to stop them for putting a tarrif on ours?

And that's why it's so appealing to people. Put a hundred dollar a year tax on sugar and there will be outrage. But the average consumer pays more than that a year on higher food costs because of protectionism and we don't here the least bit of protest except in Econ books that nobody reads.

that protect workers' rights and the environment.

Buddhamama makes good points re: factories. Moreover, many types of jobs are being exported to other countries, not only factory jobs.

Freetrade favors developing the corporate world rather than the human world.

The question is do the corporations serve the people's interest or do the people serve the corporations? As long as they do not allow the people's voice to be heard in negotiations it will simply be the corporate feudal lords passing out parcels of land to their vassals.

Its what made America great and its exactly the export of manufacturing that many on this topic bemoan.

I would never want to work in a factory.

this is about you.

and since you can't imagine yourself doing it, you look down on people who work at factories. there is nothing all that great about being a white-collar worker. you're still a 'slave' to the corporation, a higher paid slave, but a 'slave' nonetheless.

Screw factories. Let's go back to the mythical time of yeomen farmers. There's nothing great about factories. Sure they produce things more efficiently than you can at home. But do we really need TVs and computers and cars and washing machines?

what you are talking about is a fundamental shift.
my position on whether material goods are necessary and can we do without them was/is not the point.

You want us to retain factories even if the natural progression of things is for factories to get moved overseas. How is that different than suggesting that we all go back to farming despite the fact that the natural order of things was industrialization?

isn't exactly what i am talking about.

it is retaining the ability for individuals to work in different fields without the corporation undercutting their business/work by way of cheap labor. i gave the example of a small industry business owner.

the white-collar workers are losing their jobs too, to overseas workers. what is the natural progression. do you know?
why should we retain those jobs?

I wonder if those people who think we don't need factories have ever worked in one.

I have. This may surprise those of you who know that I'm a Ph.D., but yes, I have worked in factories, both as a summer job and in the days when I was one of the proverbial unemployed Ph.D's.

I also spent my grade school years in a Wisconsin town that was dominated by two manufacturing plants. The fathers of my classmates mostly worked at either of the two companies. Their mothers did not need to work to make ends meet, because the father's wages supported the family well enough to own a house and a car. These were not glamorous, intellectual jobs, but they provided a decent living for high school graduates, and even high school dropouts.

I found the same thing when I worked in factories myself. The workers had no desire to become white collar, because they basically preferred to do manual or physical labor rather than "sit at a desk pushing papers." They liked the fact that they could just put in their time and forget about it afterwards. Of course, they complained about the specifics of the job, but that doesn't mean that they wanted to become accountants.

The old manufacturing jobs were as boring as hell, but they paid better than working at a convenience store or toting bedpans in a nursing home. The loss of these jobs devastated countless communities across the United States and created a downward spiral that sent even more manufacturing overseas.

Take shoes, for example. Most shoes sold in the U.S. used to be made in the U.S. Most are now made in the Third World. Why? Well, if your job gives you a comfortable income, you can afford to buy U.S.-made clothes and shoes. But if you're reduced to living just slightly above minimum wage, you have to buy Chinese or Brazilian shoes at Payless Shoe Source or go barefoot. As more and more blue collar workers fell into poverty or near-poverty, they became unable to afford U.S.-made shoes, and Payless Shoe Source, staffed by minimum-wage clerks and carrying Third World shoes, flourished.

I believe that countries have the right to decide which economic system they want to follow, and that no world body has the right to impose a "one size fits all" policy on them. If they suffer from bad decisions, that's their problem.

I remind you that the greatest economic success stories, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and in an earlier era, the U.S., got rich not by opening their borders to economic exploitation by outsiders but by protecting their own industries and using the financial and intellectual capital of outsiders in tightly controlled ways to further their own interests.

I have a college degree also and have worked in a factory myself. There is an undercurrent of elitism and looking down on factory work as being beneath them amongst many, but I honestly don't comprehend that attitude.

Factories are good for our economy and good for our society.

<<I remind you that the greatest economic success stories, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and in an earlier era, the U.S., got rich not by opening their borders to economic exploitation by outsiders but by protecting their own industries and using the financial and intellectual capital of outsiders in tightly controlled ways to further their own interests.>>

Your argument reminds me of people I encountered while protesting against the World Economic Forum in NYC in 2002. You make it out as if it's an either/or choice: either we simply accept things as they are right now, or we all go back to sustinence farming and weaving our own cloth.

It's far from that simplistic, and you know it. The challenge is to find ways that we can move economies forward while at the same time moving societies forward as well. As it stands right now, we are sacrificing the society (and the environment) for the economy -- a strategy that will only cause both of them to eventually come crashing down, because they are so closely intertwined.

you've heard that overly simplistic, black-and-white, "either you're with us or you're against us" false dichotomy argument before. Hmmmm

need and want are so confused these days

Some of us enjoy white-collar work. Why does that mean we look down on anyone? I like computers I don't like putting parts on the latest ford escort while it zooms down the line.

I don't have a problem with those that work there but I WOULD NOT WANT TO.

Do you have a problem with that?

and if you look at my post was directed at Carlos not you. not white collar workers even. just pointing out that we're all in the same boat no matter where one works. and factory workers are not beneath white collar workers. it is that attitude that i am objecting to.

But my dad was blue collar and told me that I should do better than that.

I really cant imagine that it is worse than working in a mcdonalds, or cleaning bathrooms, or doing any number of low level service jobs. Id imagine its probably better than alot of them.

The concept of free trade is flawed because free trade doesnt exist. We dont have free trade in America, so how could we possibly create free international trade there is a massive amount of government intervention in the American economy from regulations to subsidies.

Free trade is a pure state that cannot exist in reality. A free market leads to monopolies and wealth accumulating among a small group, it destroys the enviroment, it exploits workers and consumers. Checks on industry need to be in place, only with those checks in place should we allow our economy to get freely linked with another economy.

Free trade doesn't lead to monopolies. Government interaction does. Milton Friedman once wrote that DeBeers was the only monopoly formed without the help government involvement - be it exclusive contracts or barriers to competition. I've yet to read anything to dispute his claim.

We all know that M. Friedman was never wrong in any of his opinions, now don't we?

Come on, zoidberg! A great many of Friedman's theories and philosophies have been disproven by the data extant. (Including those that got him his Nobel nomination.) That's been known for 15 years!

Using him as a source of credibility is slicing things a little thin.
The Professor

I'm not taking his word as gospel. But when a widely respecting Economist gives a statement of fact that I've never seen disputed, I tend think he might have a point. I'd be happy to discuss the contents of the comment, and would even be willing to change my mind. But it's no good argument to say that Friedman has been wrong on some things so he must be wrong on this. Name one economist who has never been wrong.

But when a widely respecting Economist gives a statement of fact that I've never seen disputed, I tend think he might have a point.

What you have referenced is hardly a fact, but rather an economic theory. I would hope that when you start discussing these things, you're at least honest enough to recognize and identify the difference.

Go to any university library. Entire books have been written that contradict and critique everything Friedman has ever theorized.

His whole theoretical base has been proven to be so badly in error, that his credibility on ALL things economic has been diminished.

You won't even hear liberterian and conservative economists mention his theories anymore at the Economics Club of Chicago. His opinions carry so little weight amongst professional economists and econometric analysts. (I'm the latter.)

The point of my post, as you apparently missed it, was that you declared your position correct because Milty said something once that supported it. My sarcastic reply was intended to critique your certitude, not Friedman. My comments about him were meant for you to think twice about your certainty if your supportive documentation was Milton Friedman.

BTW: The statement is untrue. Look into the historical economic record of late 19th century United States. I'll think you'll find the statement laughably incorrect.
The Professor

The reason there was only one formed without government intervention is that there are few places on this planet where large businesses can operate without government intervention.

Monopolies would certainly form in a free market, thats very basic economics. All a corporation has to do is get an advantage and then use its power and profit to knock competitors out of business. There is a reason we have anti-trust laws. Monopolies abound in a free market.

Name one other monopoly that has come about with free trade.

I'm talking ZERO government intervention, here.

Let's just say I won't hold my breath. ;-)

For your sake I will say zero intervention in the mater of international trade, in tariffs & quotas.

I will also give you a couple of answers. Hong Kong & Singapore. :evilgrin:

I will also mention the European Single market, a tariff-free bloc covering this wonderful continent of ours (well, most of it anyway!). Even though I am not at all fond of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, as I have alluded to earlier in this thread I do like the European single market. :-)

With a 95% market share, its practically a monopoly, and I don't think you can claim much government interference in the OS market.

I see a monopoly as being defined by barriers to entry more than by market share. Microsoft might be a monopoly because they are able to put their system on just about every computer made. Apples are still an alternative though, and my computer dork friends keep telling me that Open Source software is the wave of the future (I think I used the right term). So I guess we'll see.

Besides, I don't think Microsoft is really a big, scary, anti-labor corporation that most people are scared of.

By outsourcing it's support overseas and I and about 500 people I work with are all losing our jobs to people in India because Microsoft would rather pay them a pittance compared to what we make.

I guess Bill doesn't have enough money.

Sure, you can narrowly define the market - "the OS market" - and pretend that it exists in a vacuum. But of course it doesn't.

The computer industry in general has been one of the most heavily subsidized and regulated industries in modern history. Not only were the some of the first few generations of computers built directly by the government, but government chartered corporations, like IBM for instance whose main customers have often been governments, have been responsible for many more. Microsoft wouldn't exist as the near monopoly in the "OS market" if it wasn't for IBM, and IBM wouldn't have ever existed if it wasn't for the direct intervention of the government.

Not to mention governments are some of Microsoft's biggest customers, and that many governments have special rules favoring Microsoft products over others. We would have the source code to Windows if it wasn't for government interference "protecting their intellectual property" - basically threatening to arrest anyone doing certain kinds of reverse engineering or leaking code from MS.

If you're looking for the invisible hand of the pure free market, Microsoft and the computer industry are particularly bad examples.

I always knew I could count on you to back me up! :)

since there is no way to disprove your assertions, it's worthless - there is no free trade without government interference.

I could say "computers cannot exist without a government" and you can't disprove it since there have always been governments during the computer age.

Free trade doesn't promote the creation of monopolies, governments do.

never has, never will. It's a propaganda term that has little bearing on reality. Governments are a monopoly, and of course they help create monopolies. Monopolies can and do form in a "free market" as well.

But maybe you are right - let's end the government monopoly on force, and we'll see how long any corporation lasts as a monopoly when we are all free to use force against them :)

Trillions of dollars in trade occurs every year between states within the US without restriction, and most of those states have economies far bigger than entire nations. Ditto for the European Union. Free trade does exist, and it is the future whether you believe it or not.

If you read what Kevin Phillips has to say about free trade (the British tried to force it on everyone in the latter 19th century, and were far further along than we are today) in Wealth and Democracy, you just might realize how hollow your arguments are on this issue. Especially statements like, "Free trade does exist, and it is the future whether you believe it or not."

Your arguments in favor of the free market that does not exist are belied by history, Nederland. We are going the same way of the Spanish Empire, 17th century Holland and 19th century Britain.

Higher tariffs and trade wars are not the answer. They never have been.

I have never once said that higher tariffs and trade wars were the answer. In fact, I'll personally mail you a $1000 check if you can find ONE SINGLE INSTANCE that I have advocated higher tariffs as a means to Fair Trade. You're simply being disingenuous, and frankly, I have come to expect something better from you than that on these boards.

And you said before that you do not think that corporations should have a spot at the negotiating table. If you think that we will EVER have a system in which that will occur, I've got a few bridges to sell you. Wealth translates into power, and vice-versa -- it's pretty much a truism throughout history. Considering the massive wealth and power of corporate interests, it is PURE FOLLY to consider that they will be shut out of negotiations. Therefore, the goal must be to push for a system that strictly regulates their actions to keep them from encroaching on human rights, the right of labor to organize, and the stewardship of the environment. To simply allow them to proceed unregulated, under the assumption that they will behave in an ethical manner or that their excesses will be brought to heel by some fictional "invisible hand" is the stuff fairy tales are made of!

Lots if not most of that inter-state trade have government created corporations as the buyer or seller, with investors protected from liabilities, and favorable regulations. Now, since many libertarians support that kind of government intervention - which disproportionally helps the rich incidentally - libertarians pretend it's not government interference, which of course it is.

And let's not forget the OBVIOUS government intervention, as most of these exchanges use legal tender credit money created by a quasi-governmental agency.

Now if you are talking about farmers trading vegetables with each other, than sure, that's about as close to free trade as you can get. But of course, we aren't.

As soon as you can show me a real, functioning, vibrant society in which government intervention does not exist, I'll buy into the theories of Hayek and Friedman as viable. But the fact is that governments ALWAYS intervene. They always have, and they always will. The challenge is to set up a global framework that recognizes human rights, labor rights and environmental stewardship at least as much as it recognizes the right of capital to maximize profit. As it stands right now, we are eons away from that goal. And profit continues to be made at the expense of the other three at an accelerating rate.

I have worked on an assembly line and driven a forklift. Honest work is honest work and I have real issues with people who think certain types of work are "beneath" them.

It's nothing more than another version of the attitude that allows right wingers to live with themselves shopping at Wal-Mart and paying slave wages to people who work just as hard if not harder than them for peanuts with no benefits.

I hate that attitude, because we need those people who clean the shit out of the toilets at night as much they need you to push your pencil. It doesn't make them less deserving of the basics of life (food, shelter, clothing, health care) and safe working conditions.

So many of our supposed white-collar jobs are just factory jobs that rely on brain, rather than physical, labor.

Mid and lower level white collar workers are increasingly allowed no - if they get any at all anymore - input and decision-making responsibilities. Everthing is done by the rule book. You don't learn on the job, how to do it better. You just learn to kiss the right ass if you want to advance.

also a lot of factory jobs require degrees because the machinery to operate them is so complicated.

that benefits both sides

i like Kucinich's position on trade (as I understand it) ...

he argues for bi-lateral trade negotiations ... we cut the best deal we can with each individual country ...

many of the posts in this thread have focussed on the labor issue ... and rightly so ... but there is also the issue of the environment and product safety ...

why should U.S. citizens be asked to sacrifice their jobs, a clean environment and product safety to promote global free trade ...

how can a U.S. company compete with a third world company that is allowed to dump industrial waste in the local rivers ... why is it fair to offer to buy foreign products when workers who make them are paid many multiples less than american workers ... why should we sign trade treaties that may render our product safety rules (for imports) void because they "unfairly restrict" products made in other countries ...

one-size-fits-all trade policies force the U.S. to comply with the "least common denominator" ...

promoting economic growth and a better standard of living in third world countries is a most admirable objective ... but doing it at the expense of lowering our standards is the wrong approach ... "free trade" in its current incarnation, is nothing but corporate welfare for american corporations ... jobs will be shipped overseas ... and environmental and product safety standards will be reduced in the name of international competitive pressures ... soon, you'll be hearing things like: "if you don't want to force american companies to ship their jobs overseas, you have to reduce all those pesky regulations that make it harder for us to compete ..." ...

NAFTA is just another win for america's ruling class ... wake up democrats ...

It is a system in which the industrialized nations used a network of protectionism, subsidy and tariff to gain advantage -- and now want developing economies to open themselves up without growing their economies by similar means first. It is the equivalent of laissez-faire economics applied on an international scale, which makes me wonder why so many supposed "liberals" support it.

Now, if you want to talk about freeing up trade, there is no reason why there should not be freer exchange of goods between, say, the US, EU, Australia, Canada, Japan, and South Korea -- because all of these countries have developed their economies to the point that it is a much more fair game. However, to expect Bangladesh, Indonesia or Vietnam to have their native economic base compete with US-based transnational corporations is just sheer folly. They will undoubtedly be swallowed up, and instead placed in a system of dependence upon foreign capital for their very livelihood -- which will never have any chance of improving, for as soon as they begin to strive for organized labor or environmental protection, the foreign business will move somewhere else that doesn't present that problem toward maximizing profit.

Another problem is the wish to commodify EVERYTHING and lash it to the whims of the "free market", which is perhaps the biggest lie ever told. There is no such animal as the free market, there never has been, nor will there ever be one. Human nature will prevent it from occurring. So, the end result is that the bigger bullies on the block use their position of power to flout the rules while intimidating smaller countries from speaking out. TiB brought up an excellent point above regarding agricultural policy. As bad as he may think the EU is, the US is even worse -- at least EU policy is built around protecting family farms, while the majority of US subsidy goes to extending the reach of agribusiness. In any event, both policies are meant to close the door to imports from developing nations while simultaneously flooding said countries' markets with their own exports. The end result is a system of dependence, a "neocolonial" relationship, as it were. And the single-crop export model pushed by the IMF, WTO and World Bank is destructive to local communities and extremely destructive to the environment. The only winner ends up being short-term profits of agribusiness.

Then there's the intellectual property rights issue that has effectively prevented developing nations from manufacturing generic drugs to fight diseases that are completely curable. The main force behind this is Big Pharma and their drive to maximize profit over all else. In the end, the human cost has been, and continues to be, enormous.

As for services, that's another issue all unto itself. Neoliberal economists think that everything should be up for grabs -- electicity, water, postal service, education, etc. If you can think of it, they believe that the market is the best provider. However, if there is no viable, functioning base of these services to begin with, how can it be expected for a foreign corporation to build it up when their only real interest is short-term profit? Just look at the situation regarding Bechtel's purchase of water distribution services in Bolivia, and the accompanying backlash by citizens against Bechtel, for an example of why this doesn't work. Hell, just look at the recent blackout in the US!

Trade is a complex issue, and it always will be. While the answer is not wholesale protectionism, it is not opening up the floodgates either. Only when human rights, labor rights and environmental stewardship are factored into the equation as much as the rights of capital will we have a truly equitable global trade system. Right now, we are a long, long, long way from that realization.

"Only when human rights, labor rights and environmental stewardship are factored into the equation as much as the rights of capital will we have a truly equitable global trade system. Right now, we are a long, long, long way from that realization."

However, to expect Bangladesh, Indonesia or Vietnam to have their native economic base compete with US-based transnational corporations is just sheer folly.

Actually, these countries compete just fine with US transnationals. That's why so many labor unions want to restrict trade from 3rd world countries--they know that they can't survive the competition.

The NYT ran some pretty nasty editorials about how the US Catfish Industry is trying to drive the Vietnamese out of business. Seems that they really know how to raise catfish in Vietnam.

Have the govt (or it's officials) control all of the bigger industries so that it's citizens will work for peanuts. I guess you missed that part of the article.

- Have no environmental regulation so that there is not limit on how much waste from the fish farm can flow into the water supply.

- Have no government oversight or regulation on the use of growth hormones, so the fish can grow faster (not to mention fattier) -- and take over the habitat of natural catfish should they escape, throwing a monkey wrench into the ecosystem.

Yeah, they sure do know how to grow them catfish, don't they? :eyes:

If GM opens a plant in Mexico, and then ships parts to another plant in Chicago, is that even trade? We're talking about transfering goods and services from one branch of a corporation to another. Why should they get tax breaks for this?

Is regulated trade that insures that high paying jobs stay out of the hands of poor, third world workers and remains in the hands of middle class Americans who have a God given right to be the only people on the planet allowed to make things for other Americans.

couldn't we have regulated trade that assures that every worker is paid fairly with labor protections, and without the destruction of the enviroment.

i don't have a problem with workers in other countries getting jobs. i feel bad for them really because the Deals are stacked against them.

does Coke need to be killing its Colombian workers and buying up the water for the company to survive? nah. it's greed plain and simple.

Who gets to define what's "fair" pay? Is it defined by US labor unions, or the market?

should be based on the country's economy and markets. it can't be a one size fits all approach to wages but, it should be enough to live on, providing for adequate shelter,food,etc,etc.

what amount of wage required for those provisions depends on the country.

Are wages being set by anyone other than the workers themselves?

I ask because what you describe sounds like some sort of international committee.

sounds complicated. their should be standards,of course.

the workers should have a say, but so too, should the State and local governments. with 'fairness' in mind.

if i were to packup and move to NYC with what i make now, i'd most likely be homeless. but living in the State and area of the state i live in i can survive.
that's where the one size fits all doesn't work. if i worked in a Walmart say in NYC but with slightly higher wages because of cost of living then took those same wages and moved here, i'd be living in 'luxury'.

i'm for community involvment.

i do think it is possible to pay workers a living wage,protect them from expolitation and greed and still allow for corps to make a profit.

I guess that's where we disagree. I think that wages should be set by a negotiation between workers and management. If workers want to band together and form unions to improve their bargaining power, they should be free to do so. However, other than enforcing environmental and safety regulations, government should not be involved.

is that corporations can and will manipulate the markets for profits sake. CA's energy market comes to mind.

The CA energy market was not a free market. It was rigged.

and is being manipulated for profit at the expense of human rights, worker's rights and the enviroment.

what would you do to address the Coke co. example i gave in an above post?

does Coke need to be killing its Colombian workers and buying up the water for the company to survive?

No.

to stop it from happening right now, and in the future? what are your thoughts on how this type of behaviour by corporations could be controlled and dealt with?

a question in regards to markets. are you opposed to government subsidies and bailouts?

I don't drink Coke. That's the free market response, isn't it? If you don't like how a corporation is behaving, you stop supporting it.

a question in regards to markets. are you opposed to government subsidies and bailouts?

Yes.

What kind of libertarian fantasyland are you living in?

Only unionized workers have a say in what their wages are, which is hard to accomplish if your government either bans or is hostile to unions.

Also, even in the United States, local employers can force down wages. New Haven Connecticut was an example in the 1970s. Yale University, by far the largest employer of office workers in the city, paid its clerical workers hourly wages that hovered around minimum wage. In my student jobs, I knew workers who were working full time and were eligible for food stamps.

As a result, no one else in the area felt any need to pay clerical workers well.

Yes, yes, you will probably say. But workers can always pack up and move if wages are low in their area.

Can they? Haven't you ever heard the expression, "Too poor to leave"?

Its called reality, not fantasy Lydia. Apparently you are unaware of the fact that there are over 50 million people in this country that do not work for minimum wage and do not belong to a union. Answer me this, if these people's wages are not set by the market, how are they set?

The company AND the workers get to define what fair pay is otherwise
Companies wouldnÕt even pay 35 cent an hour.

Left to their own devices, Companies would pay nothing at all.

Wages are set by bargaining between workers and employers. Government should have nothing to do with it.

Because it is a fact that when corporations are left to their own devices it doesn't care for it's employees.

is labor unions, not government intervention.

Workers have no power against big business and need government to equalize
The playing field, and even then itÕs not fair because some governments allow themselves to be bought.

ThatÕs why we have minimum wage, thatÕs why we have standards.

The corporation, subsidized by the states, with lots of money and capital, or the peasant getting a job?

That game is rigged from the beginning, and we all know who wins it.

Let's see, if the corporation has no workers it makes no money. If the workers have no job they make no money. Sounds pretty even to me.

The economic success stories succeeded through "import replacement," learning to make things for their domestic markets that were previously supplied by foreigners.

Actually, the real success stories in the last fifty years have been countries like South Korea that created export based economies. Like all poor countries, domestic markets did not provide enough demand to generate sizeable amounts of wealth, the real money was to be found by exporting to rich 1st world countries. Only after two decades of transferring wealth out of 1st world countries and into their own via free trade did countries like South Korea develop a sizeable domestic market.

That's why free trade is so important to the third world. You can talk all you want about replacing imports with domestically produced goods, but it won't get you very far. In order to transform your economy out of 3rd world status you need access to billions of dollars. The best way to get that kind of money is to make stuff that you can sell to the 1st world-- but if trade barriers prevent you from selling to the 1st world, you are screwed.

The thing that I think you and I would agree on is that when you look at what countries like South Korea did, you find that they did exactly the opposite of what organizations like the World Bank and IMF suggested. They didn't open up their markets to foreign investment capital and foreign ownership, they sharply restricted foreign ownership. They relied on the free flow of goods, but not the free flow of capital.

in education and infrastructure and instituted land reform, measures that go counter to the World Bank's recommendations, which stress slashing government spending, de-emphasizing production of food and goods for domestric consumption, and emphasizing the export of raw materials, ag products, and manufactured goods.

But you seem to be avoiding my central point, which is that without free, open access to 1st world markets, South Korea could never have gotten to where they are today. As I have repeatedly pointed out, free trade is vital to the development of the third world.

for important domestic industries, exactly the same way that the US and other advanced countries built their economies. "Free trade" had nothing to do with it, protectionism did.

South Korea did practice protectionism in order to protect its infant industries. However, I was talking about US trade barriers, not South Korean ones. As I have repeatedly pointed out, South Korea could never have gotten to where it is today if the US had imposed the type of trade barriers that many Democrats would like to see imposed.

People on this thread seem to argue that free trade hurts third world countries and helps US corporations. In fact, free trade does the complete opposite--its helps third world countries develop their own manufacturing base while hurting US bsed firms. If you are a Pat Buchannan type America Firster, advocating trade barriers make complete sense. The question is, should Democrats be pushing the platform of Pat Buchannan?

I have watched "free trade" decimate the manufacturing sector.

Now I am watching "free trade" decimate the service sector (particular the IT sector).

You don't like protectionist policies and free trade for the most part means that US workers get screwed by greedy corporate interests who race to exploit third world labor for peanuts at the expense of American workers who made the company successful.

So what is your solution? Just keep taking it up the ass from corporate interests?

On one hand you say that we need "free trade", and that it's something that the Democrats should be championing. The problem is, that what is being enacted through the likes of GATT, NAFTA, FTAA and WTO is just the kind of protectionism that you seem to be so dead-set against.

A prime example is the intellectual property rights afforded to pharmaceutical companies through the last TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement. Basically, Big Pharma is allowed to hold patents for ten years on new drugs, and developing nations are not allowed to manufacture generic equivalents without proving there is an epidemic. South Africa did try and go this route, and all of Big Pharma tried to stop them. Of course, they withdrew the suit due to bad publicity. But now, no developing nation is willing to risk crossing them, so their tactic succeeded.

Another excellent example is how Mexico was prohibited from receiving technology transfer as a result of NAFTA, at the behest of the US and Canada. The result is now that the Mexican economy is good for cheaply assembling things for big corporations, but they can't develop any of their own industries by learning the technologies and then innovating new methods, as South Korea and Japan did.

Finally, there is the flouting of agricultural rules by the bigger nations, which has absolutely crushed the livelihoods of countless developing nations throughout Latin America and the Carribean.

Once again, you present the argument as an either/or dichotomy. It's not. Most of us are not advocating that the US should close its borders to foreign imports. What we are advocating is that labor, consumer groups, environmental advocates and human rights groups should have the same clout at the negotiating table as trans-national corporations -- so that we make certain that we get things right for ALL of the workers and societies throughout the globe. I fail to see how that is so hard for you to understand, as I know that you are an intelligent guy. Simply allowing the fictitious "invisible hand" to take care of everything is not any more viable of a solution than depending on the tooth fairy or Easter bunny to solve our problems. :eyes:

What we are advocating is that labor, consumer groups, environmental advocates and human rights groups should have the same clout at the negotiating table as trans-national corporations

And this is where we disagree. I think that consumer groups, environmental advocates and human rights groups should be at the negotiating table, but that labor and corporate interests should not.

I think that consumer groups, environmental advocates and human rights groups should be at the negotiating table, but that labor and corporate interests should not.

Considering the massive wealth and power exercised by corporate interests (many with greater revenues than the GDP of nations), just HOW do you propose that they will be shut out of the process? Will you just say, "Please," and they all will simply walk away? Do you honestly believe that the fictitious "invisible hand" of the market will act to curb their excesses, as it does so marvelously under the current framework?

Your view is a purely delusional one, grounded in fantasy and theory. Given the REALITY of the rapacious behavior of modern corporate interests in search of short-term profits, it is imperative that their excesses be brought to heel through regulation and giving people (including labor) a much increased role at the negotiating table.

That's an interesting sleight of hand though.

"People on this thread seem to argue that free trade hurts third world countries and helps US corporations. In fact, free trade does the complete opposite--its helps third world countries develop their own manufacturing base while hurting US bsed firms."

That manufacturing base you're talking about belongs to the US corporations, not the third world countries, and certainly not the workers in the factory.

That manufacturing base you're talking about belongs to the US corporations, not the third world countries

Not if the third world country institues smart policies. I have repeatedly pointed to the example of South Korea. What they did is smart--they restricted foreign ownership of corporations.

The current free-trade zealots are doing everything in their power to actually prevent developing nations from taking the same tack as industrialized ones. I have given you specific examples of how the industrialized nations have repeatedly used "free trade" as a mechanism to solidify corporate control over everything.

the current "free trade" movement has been about loosening trade barriers because *right now* the US and the EU are in the position of power - we have all the money. The free traders are not interested in building the economy of other countries, obviously.

It's amazing how naive someone can be when they believe that these corporate trade institutions like the WTO and IMF set up by Western powers are really trying to lessen the power of the West and empower third world countries, when the obvious effects are the opposite. They aren't altrustic, except in lassez-fairyland.

Who said I was in 100% agreement with those you term "free-trade zealots?

BUY IT. REACH IT. GRAB IT. PUSH IT. DO IT. FEEL IT. BE IT.

First, I don't renege third world countries providing jobs for their populations, but does it have to be slave labor? Do they have union representation? Do they get a living wage? Do they meet safety standards? I think you know that the answer, most of the time, is no.

Secondly, these outsourced jobs are increasing our unemployment and affecting our GNP. Third, we are going to start experiencing a brain drain as American professionals start emigrating to countries where their professions are in demand as the job markets dry up.

I think the alternative is is to take away any licenses these corporations have to distribute their prouduct in this country, if they outsource more than 30% of their production and if the outsourcing is done by slave labor or prisoners.

This is just a quick post to answer yours as right now I don't have time to elaborate on specifics.

fair trade

They build their factories in Mexico, China, India etc etc É all non white countries.

Why arenÕt American companies going to Russia or Yugoslavia and using their peoples for slave labor?

BTW, I'm for fair trade, what BP said.

No matter how you look at it we do not live in a single world economy.

It is assinine and facetious to even claim that the American worker can compete in a global market with third world labor that work for pennies on the dollar and have roughly the same standard of living as an American worker for that pay.

If I could live off 500 dollars a month in the country where I work, then it would be fair to ask me to compete with workers who's buying power at 500 dollars a month would be the same.

Unless and until that happens I will support the big boogeyman of "proctectionism" that seems to have so many otherwise intelligent people acting like it's some horrible blashphemy. I am so very tired of watching myself, friends, and family having their livelyhood ripped out from underneath them under the guise that free market is always the best and something we should just put up with even when it acts against the interests of the citizens of this country. I have watched the manufacturing sector decimated by free trade, the mining and timber industries decimated by free trade, the IT and service sector is being decimated by free trade. It's time for us to stop cowtowing to corporate greed and start looking out for ourselves.

I love it when the libertarians and free trade zealots throw that one out there. They make it sound almost as if the manufacturing sector in the third world is so much more innovative than that of the industrialized world.

Paying your workers a few dollars a day is not innovation. Trashing the environment is not innovation. Enlisting the assistance of the local government in using violence to squash popular dissent and resistance is not innovation.

It's inhumanity, and that's what the current approach is based on. The abandonment of basic humanity in pursuit of short-term profits.

I work for a company that provides technical support for Microsoft products. I spent two years providing Tier 2 support for Windows and IE and 3 1/2 years providing tier 2 support for Outlook, Outlook Express, and Netmeeting.

My cheap Indian replacements not only have none of the experience providing support to the products I support, but most of them barely understand simple English (and I know this because I have to interface with them daily and the communication barrier is incredible). Who on earth would believe that somehow the people who are replacing me (and consequently putting me out of a job) know more about this product and are better able to provide a solution to customers than my colleagues and I who have spent the last few years working with the product in question with no communication barriers? These people aren't going to provide a better service than me, and indeed, from where I stand it would appear that they will provide a vastly inferior service to that which I provide, but they have one advantage I don't: They can live for a fraction of what I get paid. That's the bottom line.

Is it necessary to the survival of the company? Absolutely not. Microsoft is one of the most profitable companies in the world and has minimal competition for the personal desktop market. There is one and only one reason for my experience and skills to be undersold to third world competition and that's shareholder/corporate greed. Microsoft made a choice to provide an inferior service to customers who need help in order to further maximize already obscene profits.

Accuse me of being against "free trade" all you want, but the bottom line is that is that I am facing unemployment because I simply cannot offer the service I provide and continue to live (and it ain't like I make a lot of money...indeed, my income puts me just barely at the average income for the nation).

I will not excuse corporate greed and be made to feel guilty for being unable to compete with someone who can live for 1/5 of what I make in a different country.

I cannot call the rigged game currently in place "free trade."
Likewise, I do not find anything "free" about a country effectively surrendering its sovereignty to the IMF or World Bank (see: structural adjustment).

On to the questions.

1. No, everybody should not work in factories forever, unless they want to.
counterquestion #1:
Is there an inherent goodness in an industrialized country shedding its manufacturing base?

2. Critics of the race to the bottom probably do not have a single goal of keeping the US an industrial economy.
counterquestion #2:
Where the heck does this question come from?

3. There is more than one fair (not "anti-free") trade version because there are a variety of critiques and unique minds.
counterquestion #3:
What is "the" alternative solution that you've seen, and why do you suppose that there are no other alternatives?

There's more, of course, but this is a good start.

A shame, that. There is a great deal that one might learn about what's called "free trade" by engaging dissimilar viewpoints. The alternative is to observe from afar. With the US' current mainstream media, of course anything short of celebrating mercantilism will be treated as bewildering or just plain wrong.

If you look at the ideas of the likes anti-globalists ranging from George Monbiot to Raplh Nader they are all quite different. Some are localists beliveing that everything must be producded locally, some want protectionism for the 3rd world but not the first world, some want protectionism for the 1st world and are not too interested in the 3rd world. There is a lot of difference between the views of say George Monbiot in his most recent book The age of consent and the platform of Dennis Kucnich.

Of course as a free trader myself I find much of this stuff to be flawed, unworkable, and even quite dangerous. Mind you, what $hrubya is praticing at the moment is not exactly free trade either. Witness the steel tariffs Bush imposed last year for instance. Just becasue i am a globalist does not mean that I support PNSC imperialism in the slightiest. Indeed the multilateral system of the WTO could be viewed as something of an alternative to the imperialism of the neo-cons, although that may be a case of choosing different flavours of turd.

I should also mention that globalist solutions are pretty damm varied too. Some of us want debt relif, some dispise TRIPS as much as many globalists. It's all one big grey area really.