Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When Will Democrats Get Real About "Free Trade"?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 01:54 PM
Original message
When Will Democrats Get Real About "Free Trade"?
Here's what the guy (Alan Binder) who wrote the book on free trade had to say about the growing practice of off-shoring high paying US jobs in this Sunday's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402555.html

Free Trade's Great, but Offshoring Rattles Me

By Alan S. Blinder
Sunday, May 6, 2007

I'm a free trader down to my toes. Always have been. Yet lately, I'm being treated as a heretic by many of my fellow economists. Why? Because I have stuck my neck out and predicted that the offshoring of service jobs from rich countries such as the United States to poor countries such as India may pose major problems for tens of millions of American workers over the coming decades. In fact, I think offshoring may be the biggest political issue in economics for a generation.

When I say this, many of my fellow free-traders react with a mixture of disbelief, pity and hostility. Blinder, have you lost your mind? (Answer: I think not.) Have you forgotten about the basic economic gains from international trade? (Answer: No.) Are you advocating some form of protectionism? (Answer: No !) Aren't you giving aid and comfort to the enemies of free trade? (Answer: No, I'm trying to save free trade from itself.)

But I would argue that there's something new about the coming transition to service offshoring. Those two powerful forces mentioned earlier -- technological advancement and the rise of China and India -- suggest that this particular transition will be large, lengthy and painful. It's going to be lengthy because the technology for moving information across the world will continue to improve for decades, if not forever. So, for those who earn their living performing tasks that are (or will become) deliverable electronically, this is no fleeting problem. It's also going to be large. How large? In some recent research, I estimated that 30 million to 40 million U.S. jobs are potentially offshorable. These include scientists, mathematicians and editors on the high end and telephone operators, clerks and typists on the low end. Obviously, not all of these jobs are going to India, China or elsewhere. But many will. It's going to be painful because our country offers such a poor social safety net to cushion the blow for displaced workers. Our unemployment insurance program is stingy by first-world standards. American workers who lose their jobs often lose their health insurance and pension rights as well. And even though many displaced workers will have to change occupations -- a difficult task for anyone -- only a fortunate few will be offered opportunities for retraining. All this needs to change. ...

But even if we do everything I've suggested -- which we won't -- American workers will still face a troublesome transition as tens of millions of old jobs are replaced by new ones. There will also be great political strains on the open trading system as millions of white-collar workers who thought their jobs were immune to foreign competition suddenly find that the game has changed -- and not to their liking. That is why I am going public with my concerns now. If we economists stubbornly insist on chanting "Free trade is good for you" to people who know that it is not, we will quickly become irrelevant to the public debate. Compared with that, a little apostasy should be welcome.


*****

Can we somehow please get this memo to our Democratic leaders in DC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. by 2010 -- china will be producing more phds in engineering, science and math
Edited on Wed May-09-07 02:09 PM by xchrom
than we do.

we ''import'' more phds than we should now.

the way things stand now -- ''free traders'' and the republick party assault on education are the two biggest enemies of our counties future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. I don't know why that surprises anybody. They have almost four times the population we do
Nothing we can do about that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. not the point.
our ''free trade'' policies fit very nicely with the very bad job we've done educating our children.

europe -- in the aggragate -- already produces more phds than we do.

where that wealth of education is -- is where the business and technology of tomorrow will be.

europe also does more to actively act on the side of it's workers than we do.

even ''free traders'' are beginning to acknowledge -- like this author does -- our social services for workers and the poor -- suck.

china -- for all the bullshit artistry of ''free traders'' behaves in a far more protectionist manner than europe or the u.s.
gee -- think they might be on to something?

that's all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 09:50 AM
Response to Reply #10
31. It is the point
Edited on Thu May-10-07 09:52 AM by dave_p
China's growing whether you like it or not. India will follow. It can happen with or without the US.

Of course US education and social provision suck. Since the 1980s the US has become one of the most unequal societies on the planet when it needs inclusion and investment in all of its people to compete.

The US need never lag behind countries which only decades ago were among the poorest on the planet, so long as it maintains the edge in innovation that made it the planet's strongest economy.

That means educating a healthy, well-housed workforce and expanding opportunity for all, rather than imagining that keeping the world's poor at arm's length will somehow make you competitive. It doesn't.

Protection doesn't promote innovation, it just lets societies atrophy behind tariff walls while workers earn less from producing exports and pay more for imports.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 02:52 PM
Response to Original message
2. What good will it do to get this memo to our Dem leaders in DC?
Edited on Wed May-09-07 02:55 PM by antigop
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3131/making_trade_work_for_everyone/

>>
The majority of House Democrats have opposed most previous trade deals, even more so under Bush than Clinton. But key leaders—including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emanuel—have often supported free trade deals in the past. And the party’s influential business-financial supporters have largely embraced the same free trade agenda as the Republicans.
>>

According to Sirota, Pelosi, Hoyer, and Emanuel have been part of the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhatrw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. If even the most ardent free traitors like Binder are ready to talk turkey on outsourcing,
why can't Democrats make at least mitigation of its huge ill-effects an important component of our national party platform?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. 37 "Free Trade" seats flipped in 2006
Edited on Wed May-09-07 04:05 PM by antigop
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2315

>>
From Florida to Hawaii and parts in between, pro-fair trade challengers Tuesday beat anti-fair trade incumbents, according to a major report on the 2006 midterm results conducted by Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division. Incumbents who had voted for the U.S. trade status quo of NAFTA, WTO and Fast Track were replaced by fair traders rejecting these failed policies and advocating improvement in 37 congressional seats, with seven in the Senate and 30 in the House.

“This election changed the composition of Congress on trade to more closely represent U.S. public opinion. Congress needs a system for negotiating U.S. trade agreements – with a steering wheel and emergency brakes on negotiators – that delivers on the public’s expectations for a new trade policy that wins for American workers and farmers and does not harm the environment or food safety,” said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch division.

Trade and off-shoring were wedge issues actively used in 115 congressional campaigns nationwide with more than 25 paid campaign ads run on trade and off-shoring. Election exit polls conducted by CNN and The New York Times revealed that Americans’ anxiety about the economy and job security trumped Iraq war concerns.
>>

Why won't the Dems mitigate huge ill-effects as an important component of our national party platform?
Well, if the last election is any example, that would be a "winnable" position. Unfortunately, we have people like Baucus who want to sell us out.

<edit to add> And those corporate lobbyists are on the hill constantly. And the Dems just can't resist those campaign contributions, can they?

I would strong recommend that anyone who is interested in trade agreements to follow David Sirota's blog. He has covered that in great detail.
http://davidsirota.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. Thanks for this comment and link, AntiGOP! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Be sure to visit David Sirota's blog
He is closely following the whole trade issue.

He used to work on Bernie Sanders' staff, so he has experience on the Hill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. Trade is important, but it must be fair.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 04:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Fair...................
Nafta appeared to be "fair". We were told it was going to be fair. We were lied to. The only fair trade laws would enact a tariff commiserate with the U.S.A.'s environmental, worker safety, child labor laws and all the other things that add costs to corporations opperating inside the U.S. borders. A tariff would force these offending corporations to treat their workers better. Right? I mean punative tariffs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Welcome to DU, Enthusiast! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Thanks, antigop........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. "Free trade" is not free. It's monopolistic and predatory.
Edited on Wed May-09-07 05:50 PM by Peace Patriot
If the planet and the human race survive global corporate predation, it's going to be a long war between the new "robber barons" (monopolistic international megacorps with no loyalty to anyone) and the slave labor they desire (the rest of us), but the humanists and progressives will win in the end, just as we succeeded against other monstrous institutions--the Medieval church, the Inquisition, feudalism, monarchy, royal succession and privilege, the Bourbons, the Tsars, the Holy Roman Empire, the Ancien Regime, state religion, the slave trade, the British Raj, Colonialism, Stalinism, Nazism, Japanese imperialism, institutionalized racial and sexual bigotry, segregation, apartheid, male privilege and domination, and serfdom, slavery and tyranny of every kind. The trend of human history and evolution is overwhelmingly humanist and progressive, and is inherently and genetically unfavorable to monolithic structures. Next is predatory capitalism and corporate agriculture--the planet killers.

True, we are up against it now. In a mere one hundred years, industrial capitalists have managed to rip holes in the planet's atmosphere and send the weather atilt and out of control--a grave threat to all life on earth. The World Wildlife Fund gives the planet 50 years--that is, 50 years to planetary DEATH--at present levels of pollution, consumption, loss of biodiversity and other environmental destruction. US-based global corporate predators--the primary drivers of planet suicide--are in the process of removing all controls on their rampage--by destroying the progressive US middle class, through economic punishment, destruction of the Constitution and honest journalism, and direct corporate control of vote counting with "trade secret" tabulation programs--just as other countries are beginning to realize how important those controls are, for themselves, for the US and the global economy, and for planetary survival. As the Chinese struggle to create an environmental movement, the US, under the Clinton and Bush regimes, has seen its once strong environmental movement and regulatory program undermined and then destroyed.

The US environmental movement's inability to pressure the US into signing the watered down Kyoto Protocols, under Clinton, was the alarm signal. The Democratic Party was no longer responsive to the will of the people, and no longer cared about the best interests of the country and the planet. Its adoption of "free trade" policy (global corporate predation) in the outsourcing of jobs was the corollary to this, on the labor front. And the Bush Junta inflicted the coup de grace--turning the EPA and all environmental law-making over to global corporate predator lawyers, and embarking on one of the biggest pollution disasters of all time: the Iraq War.

US global corporate predators, and their brainwashed consumers, are responsible for 25% of planetary pollution. With public education and proper leadership, the US could eliminate all pollution, at no great cost in the short term, and at enormous financial, quality of life and environmental gains in the long term. Very simple measures--changing the kind of light bulbs that are used, putting solar panels on roofs, banning pesticides and encouraging organic farming and local farmers' markets, and smaller automobiles, if they had been started twenty years ago--when Reagan was leading the Era of Greed, and, not incidentally slaughtering tens of thousands of indigenous peasant farmers and others in Guatemala, Nicaragua and other Latin American countries--this planetary environmental crisis could have been averted. The US example--and its enforcement of environmental laws in foreign trade deals--could have led the world in a quite different direction.

So now we have to face the consequences of the Era of Greed, and its apocalyptic conclusion--the Bush Junta. As has been clear all along, the fates of workers and ordinary people are directly linked to planetary survival. If you destroy good jobs in the US, and outsource manufacturing to cheap labor markets abroad, you create a network of oil tankers and high-pollution aircraft in between natural resources, manufacturers and consumers, creating more air pollution and contributing to the destruction of ocean fisheries--just one example of the environmental devastation wrought by unregulated "free trade" (global corporate piracy). Other elements of "free trade" destroy the country where cheap labor is being exploited, for instance, by dumping US ag produce on the markets of poor countries and quite deliberately destroying local small farmers. (There have been tens of thousands of suicides of small farmers in India, South Korea and other places, due to this dreadful policy.) The target country can no longer feed itself.

Corporate manufacturers with cheap jobs to offer then move in, drawing millions of people from broken farming communities into urban areas, and addicting them to non-nutritious, imported corporate food. The World Bank/IMF also plays a role by offering loans to the local rich elite, who rip off the money and leave the poor to pay the debt, on onerous terms, such as, a) gutting all education and social welfare programs, and b) ripping the country open to global corporate predator sweatshops and resource extraction. The taxes and other government revenues that would be used to alleviate the impacts of "free trade" go instead to foreign bankers and rich investors. The country's oil, gas, mineral, forest and other resources are meanwhile bled out the country, at no benefit to the people who live there. Illiteracy, extreme poverty and poor health abound.

In South America, this is called "neo-liberalism," and it is being strongly rejected in country after country. Venezuela has been leading the regional fight for a new paradigm, based on Latin American self-determination and cooperation. This is why Hugo Chavez and the Chavez government are so hated by the Bushites and Corporate Democrats. Venezuela is one of the strongest, most vibrant democracies in South America. It should be a natural ally of the US, if the US government was even slightly sincere about promotion of democracy and the welfare of all peoples. Instead, they try to demonize Chavez--the most innovative thinker in Latin America since Simon Bolivar--and insult the people who have repeatedly elected him, and, indeed, who defended him and their Constitution against a violent military coup attempt.

The Bushites are losing this battle. Leftist (majorityist) governments have now been elected in most of South America--in addition to Venezuela--Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador. Also Nicaragua. And there are strong leftist movements in Peru and Paraguay (likely to win future elections), as well as Mexico. The people of Latin America have had it with "free trade." They are going with the Bank of the South (started by Venezuela, in opposition to World Bank/IMF policy), and Mercosur (South American trade group, probably precursor to a South American "Common Market" and common currency). This is the overwhelming trend, with dinosauric exceptions like Colombia (a disaster area of rightwing paramilitary drug trafficking, mass murder of union organizers, peasants and leftists, and fascist--read Bushite--plotting), and occasional wily defections, like Lulu da Silva's connivance with Bush on biofuels (Brazil), which will more than likely be a labor/enviromental disaster and be abandoned in the long term.

Lulu is using the pressure on the Bushites from Chavez and the left, to weasel this biofuel deal for Brazil, but there is great opposition to it from environmental groups--because of its impacts to the Amazon--and from small farmers, workers and the indigenous. Lulu is not a bad guy. He just made a big mistake. Uruguay, on the other hand, turned down Bush's "free trade" deals, as have others; and, more than this, Bush, on his recent tour, had to endure public lectures by Latin American leaders, from Brazil to Mexico, on the SOVEREIGNTY of Latin American countries, with the Bush-leaning president of Mexico, Calderon, actually mentioning Venezuela as an example. This is probably due to the rightwing paramilitary plotting in Colombia that has recently been exposed, with connection to the top echelons of the Uribe government, on whom the Bush Junta has larded billions of US taxpayer dollars in military aid. But it is indicative of the general trend: rejection of US domination, with even center/right governments, under enormous pressure from the Left (majority) in their own countries and throughout Latin America, trying to distance themselves from the Bush regime and bad trade deals. To the extent that "free trade" has any mitigation for workers and the poor, and the environment, it is due to this extraordinary new, grass roots-driven, Bolivarian movement (Latin American self-determination), led by Venezuela.

When workers in the US suffer, workers everywhere suffer. When the environment in the US suffers, the environment everywhere suffers. This is the bad exponential power of US global corporate predator "free trade." The ripple effects are enormous, not just in immediate pollution and destruction, but in the long term abilities of countries to cope with environmental and economic destruction, and recover from it; and not just in immediate loss of small farmers (and organic food) and associated dislocation, but in the country's ability to cope with these problems and to be fair and just to its work force, and its ability to create better social conditions, aimed at prosperity.

In response to this latest set of horrors from the North, in South America, we are seeing the remarkable rebirth of the Enlightenment that produced the first American Revolution (our own). The watch words are self-determination, independence, the sovereignty of the people, democracy; there are also high levels of citizen participation in government and in small business (especially notable in Venezuela and Argentina).

The South Americans are the leading edge of human progress in the western hemisphere, not the US. We are way behind. We are losing rights, losing sovereignty, and losing control over our own fates and that of the planet. Not to mention the loss of jobs. We long ago lost control of most of our natural resources to predatory capitalists, and now they are trying to get the last of it--water, park lands and reserves, coastal protection zones and the Arctic wilderness where oil drilling has been forbidden, and forests, as well as their monopoly/privatization of various forms of energy. Worst of all, we have lost the right to vote--to "trade secret," proprietary, corporate-controlled vote counting machines.

In Venezuela, they use electronic voting, but it is an open source system--anyone may review the code by which votes are tabulated--and, importantly, they handcount FIFTY-FIVE PERCENT of the ballots, as a check on machine fraud. Know how much WE handcount? 0% to 1%, depending on how much of a stranglehold the Bushite voting machine companies have on county/state election officials. Many states have a ZERO audit of these machines. Know how much the Democrats in Congress are proposing?--2%--a mere bandaid on an egregiously corrupt election system; an illusion of reform. 2% = 98% of the ballots will never be seen by human eyes.

Tells you a lot.

People like Alan S. Binder (the shills and profiteers of global corporate piracy) have reason to be concerned. It is only a matter of time before US workers and other citizens catch up with their southern brethren and sistren. American Revolution II has already begun.

------------------------

Discussion and excerpts of Binder's WaPo article (ref for my journal--this OP):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3257958

Good info source:
www.venezuelanalysis.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. APPLAUSE! Great Post!
Bookmarking this thread for your excellent summation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. I would like to initiate a new bigotry....
I'd like to popularize bigotry against the greedy. Where conspicuous consumption and waste would no longer be cool. Greed is the source of much suffering. It's greedy to be greedy. : )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
19. Peace Patriot, On thread after thread, you come on and
distill discussions, banish trolls, and give clarity to argument after argument.

I think I love you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
15. I posted similar information here in last month
You can see Alan Blinder, at CharlieRose.com. Look up Alan Blinder
or Economics to see the interview.

I also posted at DU about a hearing before Chuck Schumers Committee
in which Blinder, Robt. Reubin , Larry Sommers appeared and
discussed the above and much more.

There will 45million job dislocations.

All three ssid we will need a large safety net. Good Employment Insurance
Health Care and Interim Assistance. Do you think these GOP will supply
this. This is why we need serious candidates for the next few years.

Overtime, they will face unbelieveable challenges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. The question should be when are we going to get serious?
Edited on Wed May-09-07 06:37 PM by primative1
If we sit back and leave it up to the democrats they will continue to do nothing. And ya know what? ... there are Republicans that agree with us (on this one issue).
When we decide to get serious about making this OUR issue then the powers that be will sit up and take notice.
But as long as we are content with this pony show every 4 years things will go on as they do now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. If we could get people as incensed and rabid as they are
over the war. Just as loud,noisy and ready to go to
any degree to get their point across, it just might
work.

The Gop that I have seen always have caveats which leave
them room to snuggle back up with Big Business--Transnationals.

Some of Democrats are weasely too, afraid to cross Big Business.

We just have to keep bringing it up until it catches on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 10:54 PM
Response to Original message
20. When primary voters quit supporting 'free' traders. (nt)
Edited on Wed May-09-07 10:56 PM by w4rma
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. Who do you consider the best and worst candidates on the fair trade issue?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. BIden and Dodd both voted for NAFTA, against CAFTA
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

If anyone has any link to a statement by either of them regarding a questioning or reconsideration of their vote, please post it.

It appears that Biden and Dodd may have learned something since the NAFTA vote, since they both voted AGAINST CAFTA:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00170
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. The best "fair" trade candidates are Kucinich and Edwards. The most pro-"free" trade is Richardson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. No argument from me on Kucinich being the best n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
22. One thing I was always puzzled by with the free traders...
Edited on Wed May-09-07 11:39 PM by Solon
is that they always claimed that job retraining will be enough to re-employ displaced workers. My question is, what jobs would be available, and at what pay scale? Because, as far as I can tell, if many of the higher paying service jobs go, manufacturing is slowly disappearing, and the idea that new industries will suddenly crop up in this vacuum, which hasn't happened yet, what we are left with are LOW paying service jobs, mostly in retail and food service.

Even then, there is a limit in HOW many of these jobs actually exist, you could have a Wal-Mart on every city block in every city in the country and they wouldn't be able to employ all these displaced workers. What we would end up with are a permanent class of people who are simply unemployable, no jobs for them, and no prospects for jobs either. Its either that, or they end up in a cycle of employment and unemployment that keeps them poor simply because they have to start at square one, every time they change a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. Kucinich, by far
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 11:52 PM
Response to Original message
23. I'm somewhat protectionist and have no bones about saying that.
Thanks for another great article mhatrw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 01:54 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. Me too, mzmolly.
I think some things are worth protecting. The word, 'protectionist', has been sneered at us repeatedly by pundits, so that it's becoming a slur to label us as such. Kind of like the way Newt and his ilk, with the enthusiastic complicity of the corporate media, managed to turn 'liberal' into a dirty word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
24. If Gore runs I really hope he rethinks his support of NAFTA.
What a disaster that was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. Supposedly he has but he will never have credibility there ...
Understanding of the effects of free trade was never rocket science. One either got it or they didn't. Ross Perot wasn't anyones genius but he got it dead on right about free trade.So did many others.
Free trade is a trade off. They contain inflation by trading away peoples livelihoods. People decide which is more important. Once someone makes that decision, its clear to me that they have openly stated who they are, their core. They cant retract that later and claim they didn't understand.
Its exactly the Gonzales syndrome, is he corrupt or merely incompetent ??? We cant afford either.
In this regard the only person we know is in our corner is Kucinich. I have to say I lean to the higher polling Edwards but suspect he is another "convert".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
29. A good article on "free" trade, "Fair trade"
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/article/how_free_is_free_trade_for_the_west/C37/L37/

>>
I find it interesting that free trade proponents argue that protecting workers or the environment or the rule of law limits the benefits of such agreements. Yet, how many people are aware of the fact that NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, contains copyright and intellectual property profit protections for corporations, yet no real protections for the people or environment this Agreement will affect. Amazingly, NAFTA also contains protections for foreign corporations that let these companies sue our government; they argue their case not in open court, but in secret panels in front of groups like the World Trade Organization, which then can award unlimited damages to these foreign companies paid for by the taxpayers of the United States.

“Free” trade without protection for workers (both here and abroad) is a bad choice. “Free” trade without the rule of law and comprehensive support for those people displaced by outsourcing and job losses is a bad choice. “Free” trade that does not require other countries to play on the same level playing field as the U.S. is a bad choice. Finally, “free” trade without regard to ensuring a sustainable long-term economy and the protection of our dwindling natural resources is a bad choice.

I support increased international trade. Trade that is “fair” as well as “free”; but let’s face it - true “free trade” is a myth. All nations utilize “managed” trade, opening up markets when desirable and protecting markets when deemed politically necessary. And doing things cheaper does not make it better. Let’s remember that the whole reason for our economic system is to benefit people. Wyomingites should not support “free” trade agreements that place the interests of corporate entities ahead of the individuals in our society and the future sustainability of our world economy and environment. Because, in the end, what matters most is the impact this has on the hard working people of Wyoming and our country.
>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-10-07 09:10 AM
Response to Original message
30. Sirota's response to Blinder's op-ed (PLEASE READ!)
http://davidsirota.com/

Scroll down to
Econ 101: How Free Traders Disrespect “Comparative Advantage” & Fair Traders Uphold Ricardo’s Principles

>>
” Blinder, invoking “comparative advantage,” writes:

“The basic principles of free trade that Adam Smith and David Ricardo taught us two centuries ago remain valid today: Just like people, nations benefit by specializing in the tasks they do best and trading with other nations for the rest.”

But here’s the problem - Ricardo’s “comparative advantage,” which when it works does bring on beneficial specialization, isn’t what’s going on most of the time with “free” trade today. Let’s turn it over to U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) to explain exactly what I mean, because this is really a critical point. In his book Take This Job and Ship It, Dorgan explains what the theory of “comparative advantage” is:

“Time and time again, companies decide that they can move their jobs to Mexico, China, Indonesia, or other countries to save costs and boost profits…Economist say it is just something called ‘comparative advantage’ in action the theory developed by David Ricardo in 1815 used an example of trade between England and Portugal…The English-Portugese example described a natural comparative advantage each has with respect to the raising of sheep and the growing of grapes. It has to do with the climate and the soil, etc.”

Then Dorgan shows how this is exactly what isn’t going on today:

“Let’s look at the way trade is today…Say a Chinese manufacturing company sells the toys it produces to a U.S. retailier. While there is an advantage to producing toys in China, it is not a ‘comparative advantage.’ Governments create the advantage. One allows its labor force to be exploited for low wages. The other turns a blind eye as jobs are sucked from its workforce. It is not some natural “comparative” advantage. It is a manipulated trade advantage… the Chinese government decides it is okay for children to work, or for workers to be put in unsafe workplaces, or for companies to pollute the air and water, or to fire or jail those who try to start a union, those are political decisions made by a government. Yes, they can create an economic advantage. But it is not a natural comparative advantage. Manufacturing is less expensive in China precisely because workers are exploited…When the political system of a country creates the artificial advantage for gain, say, through repressed labor rights, it has nothing to do with Ricardo’s theory. And yet economists continue to connect it to Ricardo’s theory.”
>>

Read the whole thing at Sirota's blog.

Also get a copy of Sen. Dorgan's "TAKE THIS JOB AND SHIP IT".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC