Hillary and "free trade"?????

Is there anyone out there who knows anything about how Hillary stands on "free trade". This is a huge issue with me. Her husband Bill told the unions to go screw themselves sideways and signed NAFTA and went on to embrace all other free trade nonsense. As far as I'm concerned this so called "free trade" is just a right wing wet dream, and I hold all Dem's that fall for it in contempt.
I looked on the Hillary for Prez website and found nothing on this issue. Can anyone help me on this?

she's rated 19% by the Cato Institute which lists itself as pro-free trade.

And an article with Time Magazine (take it for whatever you think that's worth) in which she discusses free trade, including, NAFTA and CAFTA, etc.

Times article: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html

and 4 paragraphs (per DU rules) from the article specific to your question - please check out the article for the rest.

<snip>

I voted against CAFTA , because I looked at the facts and I thought we have no environmental or labor standards—something that I believe is within the rubric of free trade. Free trade doesn't mean trade without rules. It doesn't mean a race to the bottom. It's supposed to be based on comparative advantage, so the trading partners all improve their standard of living. If you don't have some rules that will create conditions for employees to be treated fairly, the money is all going to go to the pockets of the elite. I heard the other day that in Mexico, they are importing cheap labor from Central and South America. Meanwhile, you have all of these ambitious, motivated Mexicans leaving their country to get a better life in ours. There's something wrong with this picture.

TIME: Do you think NAFTA was the right thing to do?

CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example—

TIME: That was your husband's Adminstration, wasn't it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.

<snip>

such as NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, and FTAA. I don't know how she is going to dodge the issue, but the people are waking up to this crap. David Ricardo would never call any of those agreements free trade. They're nothing but outsourcing/investment scams for CEOs and wealthy investors. Bill Richardson was a huge supporter also. Don't forget how we were sold down the river in 1993. We are now paying a heavy price for that.

Edit to add: She may have voted against CAFTA, but I still don't trust her on this issue. Her and Bill made some pretty outrageous claims about NAFTA in 1993, and they damn well knew it was a pack of lies.

They damn well know these trade agreements are horrible for American workers and mainly benefit the elites. If she wins, I hope she's better than her husband on this issue. It is however, reassuring that she got a "fair to poor" rating by CATO.

To sell us out for a fucking scam dreamed up by George Herbert Walker Bush, Carla Hills, and a bunch of fucking wealthy investment bankers continues to haunt me. All I can deduce is that they wanted the money. The money was more important to them than the working Americans who were the base of our party. That decision cost us dearly.

Comparative advantage says that of two partners who produce product A, the partner that is best equipped and best trained to produce product A should produce it exclusively for both partners. The second partner is then freed up to produce another good that he excels at producing in comparison to the first partner. Combined, both theoretically benefit from increased productivity.

However, in real life it is more an issue of the cheapest labor. Just because you can pay a workforce 60 cents an hour in a place like China does not necessarily mean the Chinese workers have the comparative advantage with respect to producing product A.

Cheapness of labor is not the same thing as comparative advantage.

The free trade regime in practice is a way for corporations to exploit cheap labor. Their profit margins don't lie.

around the world--this means money, labor and capitol ,
according to Paul Craig Roberts, Economist Hoover Institute--no
bastian of Liberal Thinking-- the Comparative Advantage is
lost. No Longer Free Trade. You eventually end up with
a Banana Republic for a society.

Hillary clears outsourcing air

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Hillary further clarified her position during her recent visit as well as solutions that could be beneficial to both countries. She urged Indian industries to invest more in the US to allay negative outpourings over outsourcing of American jobs to India. "I have to be frank. People in my country are losing their jobs and the US policymakers need to address this issue," she said. She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship.

"In 2003, US merchandise exports to India was $5 billion, while India exports to the US was $13.8 billion. Though the US understood that the economic vibrancy of India was in its own interest, there are people who feel left behind and might stir up negative feelings against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing," Clinton remarked.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html

All economics is based on supply and demand. Whoever controls either supply or demand controls the market. "Free markets" assume that no one entity or small group of entities dominates the transaction process in a market. Buyers and sellers can freely enter or exit the transaction process and viable alternatives exist for buyers and sellers. Advertising is used to control demand in the economic sphere and propaganda is used to control "demand" in the political sphere ("we only legislate what our constituents demand.") Monopolies use an assortment of techniques to control supply.

There is no correlation between what I have just briefly described and the reality of megacorporations, WTO, IMF, World Bank, NAFTA, Federal Reserve policy, or anything else. All the verbiage is meaningless. The huge trade deficits between the U.S. and its trading partners puts the lie to the notion of "free trade" being beneficial.

Another thing to consider is that wealth can only be obtained by the production of goods. There is no such thing as a viable "service" economy. When factories were outsourced to China and elsewhere, we were told to get a new profession, so a lot of us got degrees in computer programming. Those jobs are now outsourced to India. Pretty soon the only jobs left will be hamburger flipping and lawnmowing (at least, until everyone who can afford to pay for it switches to astroturf.)

Weasel Award of 2005 goes to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - NY)

http://www.itpaa.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1485

The Information Technology Professionals Association of America (ITPAA), an advocacy group
based in Wilmington, Delaware representing professionals in the high-tech field has handed
out its first Weasel Award of 2005 to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D - NY).
The organization, representing over 1,200 IT professionals nationwide, presents this award
to business and political leaders that it believes betrays the trust of the American people.

Scott Kirwin, founder of the organization, states, "We are tired of Democrats pretending they
care about the problems facing average Americans. Senator Clinton's actions prove they clearly'
do not."