We Need FAIR Trade

March 2, 2004 link

At the Cleveland City Club Monday afternoon Congressman Kucinich addressed the crowd about trade. In this 3-minute highlight, the Congressman explains why he is a better candidate than Senators Kerry or Edwards for bringing high tech and manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.A. :

Now the talk is about outsourcing. You know why we can't stop outsourcing? Because we can't put a tax on goods going out of this country or tariffs on things coming into this country. So we're about to lose our high tech industry for that same reason. This is the same reason why, any new industries we develop here we can't keep here. Because the trade agreements do not permit us to be able to find a way to be able to keep those industries solid. It's all about cheap labor, any way they can flood the market with cheap labor, our industries are sunk.

Now this is a major issue in this presidential debate, and I'll tell you why. Because Senator Kerry has voted for every trade agreement, every one of them. And he is not going to change his direction on it, he's made that abundantly clear. He says 'We'll fix NAFTA, we'll fix the WTO," well he's had time to do that, that's just not going to happen. I mean, he has another approach. And Senator Edwards, frankly has been all over the lot on this. I mean, he's doing TV commercials right now saying that if NAFTA had been up when he was in the Senate he would have voted against it, well, that's good, except that last week he told the New York Times that he essentially wouldn't end NAFTA, that he believes that NAFTA should exist. That's a direct quote from Senator Edwards, he believes NAFTA should exist. Well, if you believe NAFTA should exist, on one hand, and you say you would not have voted for NAFTA on the other hand...am I missing something here?

So what I'm saying is that the people of Ohio and the people who labor in industries and do high tech work all over this country ought to know they only have one candidate in this race who not only understands the issues, but who is politically independent enough to be able to stand up for the economic interests of American business, of the American men and women, and of the American future. Because this is not about separating us from the world, this is about setting standards for ethical commerce.

We need trade. Trade is the essence of human interaction. We need countries to be able to talk to one another. We need the chance for trade to serve as the basis for peace in the world. But there's another thing we need. We need trade that's based on principles of equity. We need trade that's based on principles of social and economic justice. We need trade that's based on human rights. We need trade that says there shall be no child labor, nor prison labor, nor slave labor. We need trade that protects the environment. We need trade that protects our society. We need trade with a vision of social and economic justice. Oh yes, we need trade.

(those that believe anti-IWR is his main & only issue) this should open their eyes.
He speaks with such clarity of thought...I am awed, as usual.

Thanks for posting, redqueen.

I wish more people would educate themselves about this issue. We're screwed, but the investor class is safe & sound. :(

...

...made by Dennis, that TRADE is essential, but it has to be done based on PRINCIPLES OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE.

I'm sick of people dismissing DK's trade policy as "protectionism". That is a GROSS OVERSIMPLIFICATION. WE NEED FAIR TRADE.

that trade is essential, and that labor and environmental protections must be included in all trade agreements.

Where the candidates disagree is on DK's proposal to void NAFTA and the WTO by decree.

WITHOUT those protections?

if you want to talk about specific votes and the reasons for them, you'll have to be specific.

so, which specific votes are you talking about?

The "Fast Track" authorization for President Bush -- ostensibly for the purposes of negotiating FTAA.

BOTH Senators voted for the bill prior to conference committee, and Kerry voted for and Edwards voted against the final bill.

To his credit, Kerry introduced an amendment offering labor and environemental protections to the initial Senate Bill. But when his amendment was defeated -- and the final product was a bill that only contained language like "promote responsible environmental and labor practices" -- he still lined up on the side of corporate interests.

What that tells me is that, if labor and the environment don't get in the way of corporate interests, then they're OK. But if there's a conflict, then you have to give in to corporate interests. Sorry, but that is NOT "fair trade".

I'm glad you included a few facts along with your characterizations. Perceptive readers can tell the difference.

now do you care to explain how he votes for free trade crap that doesn't conform to what he's saying now that he wants lots of people to vote for him?

There are some facts presented, as well as some characterizations. Intelligent folks will look at the facts, and make judgements accordingly.

Then I asked why Kerry and Edwards keep voting against what they're saying now that there's an election and they want a promotion.

You just congratulated IC on including facts (that have been posted repeatedly), you didn't try to explain how it could be that Kerry would simultaneously say he's against something and then vote for it (e.g. Fast Track).

and I don't consider people who feel the need to put words in my mouth to be worth talking to.


What I said:

" Except - every candidate agrees
that trade is essential, and that labor and environmental protections must be included in all trade agreements.

Where the candidates disagree is on DK's proposal to void NAFTA and the WTO by decree."




What I did not say: "all the candidates were the same"

would you like to address my question, finally?

How can you square Kerry's or Edwards' record with their rhetoric?

I will give you credit for having made an honest mistake, and at that point I will believe that you are willing to have an honest discussion.

Till then I will continue to judge you by your actions.

If you are unapologetic about making false statements about me and what I've said, I must assume you will continue the same behavior in the future.

Now, answer please? (And please also note: if you string people along and make giving an answer as easy as pulling teeth, some of them will get testy with you. :))

But, good enough. On continue.


You are asking me to 'justify' something that I don't believe exists. Obviously on the free trade spectrum, Kerry and Edwards are farther towards a free trade stance than Kucinich. You are welcome to look at their records, for example, the Kerry amendment to NAFTA and the fact that after is was defeated he still voted for NAFTA, or the the labor and environmental amendment Kerry offered to fasttrack (according to the other poster, I didn't know about that myself) and the fact that after it was defeated, he still voted for fast-track -- you are welcome to look at those facts and decide you like Kucinich's position better. But I think that to imply that Kerry or Edwards is in favor of unrestrained free trade is overstating the case.

so I appreciate your recognition of my efforts to engage in it. And thank you as well for responding in kind. That way, we can both ensure that differences of opinion remain just that -- differences of opinion -- rather than degenerating into personal attacks.

:yourock:

I just feel compelled to make an observation, obviously not about you, but about some of the unproductive discussions we've seen on this board, how can we hope to end the polarization in America between the left and the right, if those who agree on 90% of the issues can't engage in honest and fair debate? We have to start somewhere...

... and instead seek to honestly defend their point of view best as possible while at the same time considering the arguments of others who might have an opposing view.

I have to say that I am guilty of violating this rule quite a bit myself. But like you said, we all have to start somewhere.... :D

Because no trade agreements resulted from the vote, The vote wasn't for any trade pact, free or fair. The bill authorized the admin to negotiate, and specifies that whatever agreement is reached will be voted up or down without any possibility of amending it.

That's why the Bush administration was clamoring so loudly for it, and giving swing votes in the GOP just about anything they wanted in exchange for a YEA vote. They wanted FTAA to be the legacy of their administration with regards to trade.

The problem with the bill is that it gives absolutely ZERO negotiating parameters vis a vis labor and the environment. Therefore, the USTR is not bound to include ANY protections for labor and the environment in future trade pacts. Given the short timetable alloted for debate and vote under Fast Track, it is highly unlikely that many members of Congress will be scrutinizing these documents of several thousand pages for Trojan Horses like the investor-state clause in NAFTA.

Congress gave up their full involvement in the negotiation of trade pacts in exchange for providing negotiating objectives, which is OK in principle. The problem is that they didn't ensure that proper negotiating objectives were included.

I guess we'll have to learn by experience, again.

"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." - Ben Franklin

To be quite blunt, I would not have supported the fast track bill for Clinton, nor Kerry, as it was written. It was a predictable wish-list for corporate interests like GM food producers and big pharma for intellectual property rights, for example.

The problem lies not in the ability to negotiate, NOR does it lie in who is doing the negotiating. Rather, it lies in the totally inadequate negotiating objectives provided by the bill, vis a vis labor and the environment.

IMO it's foolish to expect a politician to negotiate in good faith on a voluntary basis.

... expecting him to hold up his end of the bargain that he'll only take a certain amount of your stuff.

The only cure for political malfeasance is sunlight. "Trusting" politicians to do the right thing is a fool's errand.

I personally believe in the credo of Michael Moore, which is, "I automatically start out from the position that my government is lying, and the burden is on them to convince me that they are telling the truth."

My point though, is that fast-track doesn't directly result in any trade pact. Whatever is negotiated will get voted on by Congress.

However, going by what the Administration was saying during the vote on this bill, it is undeniable that they wanted it for FTAA. Thankfully, Brasil and Argentina are so pissed off as us that they took most of the more objectionable stuff off the table anyway.

But we shouldn't have to count on Brasil and Argentina to save us, as citizens of the United States. That is supposed to be the role of our elected representatives.

:D

I agree that the fast track bill was written specifically for FTAA and that the fast track bill sahould have required the inclusion of labor and environmental concerns. I'm sorry for not being clear about that.

And yes, going by the letter of the law is what I was referring to.

:(

Both of them voted for that bill as well -- even though China had/has been engaging in currency devaluation and dumping and continues to be one of the world's foremost violators of basic human rights.

Why won't Bush enforce it?

Wal Mart can get away with paying Chinese laborers something like $0.12 per hour, with no environmental standards. That kind of labor is a gold mine to them.

The Chinese economy has shifted from state-communism to state crony capitalism. While this has given them tremendous economic growth in a GDP context, it has also come at some significant costs -- both short-term now, and long-term yet to be felt. Basically, they will allow ANY business in that wants to do business with them. While they have been smart in maintaining some of the policies that other Asian nations used to propel their economic expansions (specifically, import substitution and technology transfers), their current system is incredibly corrupt.

So, once again, in order to change China's practices you have to hit them in the area that you DO have control over -- namely, those Western corporations currently doing so much business with China. China wants the investment capital, so they'll do what's necessary to court that capital.

Currently, the objective is the proverbial "race to the bottom". The US could change this by enforcing standards under which businesses doing business in the US would have to operate. China would most definitely improve itself in these areas to attract the capital it needs to continue developing economically. The only difference is that it would be under FAIR trade, rather than a corporate free-for-all.

The problem is not China specifically -- because we don't have direct control over what China does, we can only try to pressure them. The problem is the businesses that do business with China, and the incentives currently in place.

So, in response to your question, I agree with Kerry -- I just think he's attacking the problem from the periphery rather than getting at the heart of it. What concerns me is that this approach will end up giving only the illusion of reform, while the abuses continue apace.

And I'm glad you agree with Kerry on this issue.

as Kucinich aptly describes

"We need trade. Trade is the essence of human interaction. We need countries to be able to talk to one another. We need the chance for trade to serve as the basis for peace in the world. But there's another thing we need. We need trade that's based on principles of equity. We need trade that's based on principles of social and economic justice. We need trade that's based on human rights. We need trade that says there shall be no child labor, nor prison labor, nor slave labor. We need trade that protects the environment. We need trade that protects our society. We need trade with a vision of social and economic justice. Oh yes, we need trade."

Not "fair trade", which Kerry, Edwards and Dean support.

I agree with Kucinich on this position.

As he doesn't think blanket agreements work for such diverse countries.

But yes, this term has been slung around so often it's like kissing a baby - ubiquitous as the firm handshake and easy smile. What we need to do is pay attention to the details.

Kucinich supports bilateral trade based on environmental concerns and human rights. It's still about FAIR trade, it's just that he chooses bilateral trade as the means by which to arrive at the goal.

From Kerry and Edwards I've heard a lot of talk about nibbling around the edges as a means to promote FAIR trade, but neither of them is truly willing to look the problem squarely in the eye and take it on. That problem is the empowerment of corporate personhood on a global scale through trade practices that are largely written by commericial interests.

If you want to promote fair trade, you have to take serious steps toward putting restraint on corporate interests.

the only real way to solve this, along with many other problems, is with a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

I believe that is the most important long-range issue in front of us, and it will be a hard-fought, generational struggle, not something that will be settled in one Presidential election.

I would say that an even bigger part of it is getting out of the "greed is good" ethos that has come to permeate our society. The only reason that corporations act in this way is because their only concern is maximizing short-term profit.

Profit is not the enemy here, it is a neutral phenomenon. But the way in which it is pursued IS the enemy.

I agree with you that reform -- including the end of corporate personhood -- is something we should concentrate on. But, if it is to stick, such reform much be accompanied by an adjustment of the values that we embrace as a society.

Process is important. People can't take too much abruptness in their political world, and the economy HATES draconian measures.

how long until you think the people won't think changing things for the better is too 'abrupt'?

The question is, whose definition of "fair" are you going to use--Mexico's, China's, or the US's? To think that the countries that are negotiating with us are simply going to roll over and accept whatever definition of "fair" we stipulate is naive. These countries want to trade with the US, and they are willing to reduce their own protective trade barriers in order to achieve that. However, if you stipulate that these countries are also going to have to live by US notions of what constitutes proper labor and environmental standards you are dreaming. They will not reduce their own trade barriers unless they feel they have a chance of competing, and if you impose US style environmental and labor laws they will not feel like they are getting a good deal and will simply chose to remain closed.

Its important to understand just how third world nations view first world nations right now, and I see little evidence that fair trade advocates do. In the final GATT round, third world countries were promised that first world countries would reduce their agricultural subsidies in the next round of trade talks. After first world countries refused to live up to those promises, the third world countries walked out in disgust. They feel that they had lived up to their end of the bargain and then gotten screwed by the first world. Therefore, to think that this is an environment where they will feel receptive to additional labor and environmental demands by first world countries is to be sorely out of touch. The third world wants the first world to start living up to the promises it has made, not to make additional demands.

This is why I truly believe that John Kerry really understands the trade problem far better than people like Kucinich. I don't remember the specifics, but in the pre-Iowa debate, John Kerry was asked if he thought that the US should demand that Mexico establish a $5 dollar and hour wage. His response, delivered with an eye roll, was: "well, we can ask...". His response demonstrated a real understanding of the trade problem: there are two sides present in negotiating a trade deal, and they don't agree on much. To assume that they do is a receipt for having no future trade deals whatsoever. Perhaps that is what they really want.

?

Nobody has insisted that Mexico pass a law instituting US minimum wages. Whoever asked that question was TRYING to spin this issue so as to confuse voters.

But the EU is vastly different because up until recently, it is a deal between roughly equal partners. Now that former Eastern block countries are being added to the EU, they are experiencing the same sort of problems that we are with Mexico.

You claim that Kucinich is not against trade. I respectfully disagree. Kucinich proudly announces that one of his first steps as President would be to pull out of NAFTA and the WTO. Saying that you in favor of world trade and saying you would pull out of the World Trade Organization is like saying that you are in favor of World Peace and saying you would pull out of the UN. It simply doesn't make any sense. Kucinich doesn't give a dam about trade, all he wants is to protect American jobs.

If the UN were systematically bombing places even though we tried to stop them, your analogy would make sense. As it is, it doesn't.

The WTO doesn't base its decisions on the conditions of workers or the environment in different places, it's all about PROFIT. Since that is the case, I agree with him that we should stop participating in that charade.

To institute the U.S. minimum wage, as they are not necessarily equiivalents in many nations, particularly the developing nation like Mexico. In Mexico, with the equivalent of minimum wage, a worker could actually live as well as an upper middle class person earning 4 to 5 times the minimum wage, so this would not be an equitable minimum wage for Mexico. That would actually be "unfair" trade, as it wouldbe requiring Mexican buisineses to pay their workers a much higher relative salary compared to what American workers are paid. it is possible to live in Mexico on 1000 dollars a month, and this would enable a person to rent a three room villa and hire a gardener and a housekeeper. I know a good number of people who have retired on Social Security alone and are living the high live in Mexico. An international minimum wage based on the costs of living from country to country is the only fair way to make sure that trade is fair. Also one must consider the many benefits that U.S. workers receive from the priovate sector, as well as the tax laws which subsidize these benefits, as well as the relatively low taxation that both American workers and American businesses pay. This is also a subsidy to both AMerican businesses and American workers that do not exist in other countries, including the industrialized ones.

Businesses in the industrialized world do not get the same tax breaks for providing employee benefits, such as paid leave, and these nations tax businesses at a far higher rate than U.S. businesses, essentially another form of subsidy. From the European and Canadian point of view, these subsidies allow American businesses to be far more profitable, and allow American workers to keep a far greater percentage of their earnings than European workers do, so again, from the other end, there is unfair trade as well.

Under the current arrangements, one of the biggest problems is the way in which labor and environmental considerations are approached as barriers to be limited, rather than as goals to be encouraged. The current agreements provide a "ceiling" for these areas, but no "floor". Personally, I believe that this should be the other way around.

Since countries like Mexico and China are desperate to attract investment capital, we could simply approach the problem from a different direction. We could enforce standards on businesses that operate HERE to insist on certain standards vis a vis labor and the environment while doing business in other countries.

This way, you don't have to go after the "one size fits all" that you alluded to in the idea of Mexico being forced to institute a $5/hr wage. But you do put the onus then on countries who want to attract business capital to PROMOTE human rights and environmental standards, rather than DISCOURAGING them by the singleminded attention currently paid to maximization of short-term profit.

Another problematic area is the idea of multilateral trade pacts between nations that have vast disparities in economic development. One of the reasons that the EU has worked so well is because it is between countries that all have comparable standards of economic development. While Germany and Holland may be slightly more economically developed than Italy, the differences are minute when contrasted with the difference between the US and Mexico. The latter situation is where you get some of the "one size fits all" approach that has proven to be so ineffective. The economic success stories like Japan and South Korea actually blossomed by bucking the advice currently given by Western "experts" and instead pursuing their own path.

Furthermore, although I know you are much more of a proponent of the "free market" than I am, you have readily admitted that the free market does not provide adequate mechanisms for promoting environmental protections. I think that this is something that carries over in quite glaring fashion regarding global trade. As much as it may be pie-in-the-sky dreaming, one thing that needs to happen IMHO is vigorous research of alternative energy sources and efficiency improvements by Western nations and the sharing of these technologies with developing economies. Of course, such a push would require a shift in subsidy in order to give businesses the proper incentive to move in that direction, and I know how much you hate that word. ;-)

It was the first agreement of its kind to include an entire section on environmental protection. That in and of itself is progress. For Kucinich to say that he would ditch NAFTA because it doesn't meet his purity test is for the US to turn its back on the most important trade deal ever negotiated. It would turn the progress on world trade back thirty years, which is precisely what most Kucinich supporters would love to see: a return to the days when US firms did not have to compete for market share.

If NAFTA had such beautiful and magnificent environmental protections, why was the state of California successfully forced to include MTBE in it's gasoline imports, despite the fact that studies have shown that this pollutes water?

When CA tried to stop the imports based on their environmental laws, they were sued, and would have had to pay millions of dollars to the corporation.

Is everyone on this site so into nitpicking and hairsplitting that they'd prefer to do that than continue the discussion?

I just object to the use of a strawman.

What I said was that NAFTA was the first agreement of its kind to include an entire section on environmental protection. What I said was that that aspect of NAFTA represents progress toward the goal of having all future trade deals address environmental issues. When he says he would pull out of NAFTA, Kucinich is turning his back on that progress. That's why I agree with the Kerry / Edwards position that NAFTA should be fixed but not scrapped. If you scrap it, you throw away years of progress and have to start all over.

It seem to me that Kucinich's trade position is a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

John Kerry referred to it as such when asked about NAFTA in the recent debates. There is NOTHING in the original North American Free Trade Agreement's main text that directly addresses labor or environment concerns. Since they're only addressed in side agreements, they are pretty much unenforcable as far as all three parties are concerned.

And this doesn't even begin to address the way in which Chapter 11's investor-state clause was, in the words of William Greider, turned "from a shield into a sword" to attack any efforts of governments to impose environmental regulation, as evidenced by Methanex v. US, Metaclad v. Mexico, et. al.

The fact that you would refer to NAFTA as "the most important trade deal ever negotiated" is, to be honest, rather frightening. NAFTA was important in the sense that it was the first major trade deal between nations to legitimize corporate personhood ABOVE the personhood of actual citizens, and in the fact that it took a major step toward guaranteeing corporate investment against risk due to unforseen environemental consequences and the like.

Now, if you would please, I'd appreciate a response on the several other points I brought up in my post before we get too far off track.

Under the current arrangements, one of the biggest problems is the way in which labor and environmental considerations are approached as barriers to be limited, rather than as goals to be encouraged. The current agreements provide a "ceiling" for these areas, but no "floor". Personally, I believe that this should be the other way around.

I don't understand why you say this. What section of the treaty (or side agreements) are you referring to?

Since countries like Mexico and China are desperate to attract investment capital, we could simply approach the problem from a different direction. We could enforce standards on businesses that operate HERE to insist on certain standards vis a vis labor and the environment while doing business in other countries.

This way, you don't have to go after the "one size fits all" that you alluded to in the idea of Mexico being forced to institute a $5/hr wage. But you do put the onus then on countries who want to attract business capital to PROMOTE human rights and environmental standards, rather than DISCOURAGING them by the singleminded attention currently paid to maximization of short-term profit.

If you force US companies to operate on different standards than foreign ones, you merely change the business equation. Doing this would only insure that entire corporations would move overseas rather than merely a portion of their workforce. Much as you deride the "one size fits all" approach, it is the only thing that works. If you have different standards for different countries companies will simply move everything to the country that offers the least restrictions.

Another problematic area is the idea of multilateral trade pacts between nations that have vast disparities in economic development. One of the reasons that the EU has worked so well is because it is between countries that all have comparable standards of economic development. While Germany and Holland may be slightly more economically developed than Italy, the differences are minute when contrasted with the difference between the US and Mexico. The latter situation is where you get some of the "one size fits all" approach that has proven to be so ineffective. The economic success stories like Japan and South Korea actually blossomed by bucking the advice currently given by Western "experts" and instead pursuing their own path.

I'm confused. Are you therefore opposed to all trade treaties with economically unequal partners? Are third world countries expected to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps and reach first world standards on their own before being let into the trade club?

Furthermore, although I know you are much more of a proponent of the "free market" than I am, you have readily admitted that the free market does not provide adequate mechanisms for promoting environmental protections. I think that this is something that carries over in quite glaring fashion regarding global trade. As much as it may be pie-in-the-sky dreaming, one thing that needs to happen IMHO is vigorous research of alternative energy sources and efficiency improvements by Western nations and the sharing of these technologies with developing economies. Of course, such a push would require a shift in subsidy in order to give businesses the proper incentive to move in that direction, and I know how much you hate that word. ;-)

If you want to encourage alternative energy, you don't need to subsidize alternative energy so much as you need to simply remove the current subsidies that exist for oil. The biggest subsidy being that billions of dollars spent keeping the Middle East "stable" are not reflected in the price of oil. IMHO, its always better to remove an existing subsidy than create an additional, competing one--that way you don't look like you're picking sides. If we simply let prices reflect the actual costs of goods you would see a dramatic shift in energy sources.

Because of our unique position, we set the baseline for what the standards are.

Right now, we are setting them way too low, IMHO.

We have a lot of power in these trade relationships, since we consume and produce a good portion of the world's goods. Unfortunately, corporate powers are exploiting our position and imposing their will upon the world-- profit first, human rights second.

What DK is saying is that we CAN set the standard higher, and that we MUST do so to ensure fair trade that respects human rights as well as corporate rights.

However, as the recent walkout by third world countries demonstrates, we have made demands that have already pushed third world countries past their breaking point. Keep in mind the environment we are talking about: they walked out on the Bush administration's negotiators. To think that they would sit and listen to a Kucinich administration that is asking for even more is ridiculous. The bottom line is that if the US adopted a Kucinich position on trade there would be no more trade deals. That, I suspect, is precisely what Kucinich backers want.

is because we're too demanding of them for labor and environmental protections?

With bush doing the negotiating?

Seriously?

I thought they walked out because the agreements were perceived to be not in their best interests. :shrug:

The fact that these countries walked out on Bush gives you a clue as to how they feel about American demands. You are thinking that the demands currently being made are insufficient. Third world countries have already declared what is one the table to be unacceptable. If you are truly in favor of trade, you are moving in the wrong direction.

Those nations didn't walk away from the trade agreement becuase of onerous labor and environmental standards so there is no way of knowing if such standards would be disagreeable to them.

Regardless of their reasons for wlaking away however, to think that making additional demands would be helpful is naive. The fact is this: they are unhappy about what is currently being proposed. If you make additional demands, regardless of the nature of those demands, you would not be pushing the process forward. You would be moving backwards.

YOu agree that we their walking out does not indicate that they would have a problem with labor and environmental standards, yet you then go on to say that "to think that making additional demands would be helpful is naive"

FOr all we know, people in those countries might welcome a union and the better pay that often comes with unionization. I'm not saying we KNOW that they would like to make more money. I'm just saying "It's possible"

IOW, what you are calling "demands" (with it's negative connotations)might be seen by them as "benefits" (with positive connotations)

This is why I call them demands:

If you ask for more stringent labor and environmental regulations you are basically asking that other countries increase the cost of their goods. When you insist on something that makes a good more expensive, you are insisting on something that makes that country less competitive in the market.

In a trade negotiating, that's a demand.

:kick:

.

But I'm not sure that withdrawing from NAFTA is the best way to accomplish that--maybe it is, but maybe working through it would be better. Certainly, if we elected Pres. Kucinich, and he kept employing his fast-track trade authority, it would be much easier to just re-negotiate NAFTA than to start from scratch.

I AM confident that withdrawing from the WTO is the LAST thing we need to achieve fair trade. Developing and smaller countries would get squished by the U.S. and EU in a system of bilateral trade, especially if DK gets replaced with anyone less leftist. We DEFINITELY need to work through the WTO: multilateralism is our best prospect for achieving social and economic justice in a concrete.

is nothing but an arm of the corporate tyranny currently attempting to subvert democracy everywhere.

http://www.tradewatch.org

Because the second we allow foreign companies to actually take advantage of free trade agreements like we have, Wal-Mart will want to revoke free trade.