Alternatives to "free" trade

http://www.truth-out.org/free-trade-doesn%E2%80%99t-work-what-should-replace-it-and-why64691

As I laid out in detail in my new book “Rebooting The American Dream,” in 1791 Alexander Hamilton proposed an 11 step plan to turn America into a mighty manufacturing colossus. President George Washington took Treasury Secretary Hamilton’s advice, and by 1793 he and Congress had largely implemented the plan. That plan stood, steadily building America, until the first major cracks appeared during the Nixon administration, and an all-out war was waged against it starting with the Reagan administration. That war culminated in a Republican Congress and Democratic Pres. Bill Clinton passing and signing NAFTA and the GATT, which created the World Trade Organization.

Fletcher takes it from there and shows how the insanity of this so-called “free trade” system has, in a single generation, reversed two centuries spent building this nation.

“The US economy has ceased generating any net new jobs in internationally traded sectors in either manufacturing or services,” he notes. “The comforting myth persists that America is shifting from low-tech to high-tech employment, but we are not. We are losing jobs in both in shifting to non-tradable services–which are mostly low value–added, and thus ill–paid jobs. According to the Commerce Department, all our net new jobs are in categories such as security guards, waitresses, and the like. The vaunted 'new economy' has not contributed a single net new job to America in this century. Not one.”

<snip>

So why are we so horrifically ignorant of this? As Fletcher documents:

“Japan clearly did not become the second richest nation in the world practicing free trade. China is conceded from one end of the political spectrum to the other to thumb its nose at free trade…

“Even Europe seems to handle these matters better than we do: Germanic and Scandinavian Europe (Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland) usually run healthy surpluses, and the euro zone as a whole has had its trade within pocket change of balance since the euro was created in 1999. Thirteen European countries now pay their factory workers better than we do, and Germany (not China!) Was the world's largest exporter as late as 2008. Do all these countries know something we don't?”

So to support rule that is more monarchy or plutocracy, they started chipping away at the US economy. Basically the US was hired out as a world cop, in exchange for lowering its standard of living to balance with the rest of the world.

The standard of living and consumption in the US was considered wrong, compared to other countries, but instead of raising standard of living elsewhere, they set about lowering Americas, since higher standard of livings means a more secure populous, and an ability to resist global control systems. There argument was that the people in the US was not smart enough to see it happening, so they should have what they have removed.

Basically with the US having security in food, health and work, people would defend concepts of democracy and populous ideas, so to better fit with the global groups ideas of control and ownership of everything, by things like theft of elections and media control then transfer of power to private sector global corporations, they had to make the American people scared, poor, and without job security.

And since they wanted to go after the countries that were not part of 'global governance' they added fear to US by 911, and used US resources to attack a few countries not in 'the group' then from that, they hurt the US economy and put the people in a position where they will give up freedoms like bill of rights and democracy, while moving that money to a few people in corporate systems.

:shrug:

Or something like that.

The progression of 9/11, the wars, and economic hardships, had the multiple goals of pressure on some countries, lowering US standard of living, and creating a fear based situation that would accept a more security state.

Arguments for security state fails when it is realized those that want such a thing, are worse then those they want to control, by their desire to be in those control positions.

Can do any job.

So it has to follow every should design it's international
Trade pacts with it's nations best interests in mind.

Rationally of course - and ethically - these aren't tasks
That are beyond us.

Amazing that only my Senator Sherrod Brown seems to get this. Both parties continue to believe Trickle On Economics (Free Traitorin' being a major component of it) works for everyone; so much that a few years ago, there was a debate on the Senate floor as to whether auto workers should concede their wages to those of their third-world counterparts to hold onto their jobs. As long as this insane and insipid bullshit continues to preveal, don't look for the American economy to improve anytime soon.

... of truck driving in the 1980's.
One thing you can always do while driving is listen to the radio.
So, among other things, I made The National Press Club luncheon speeches (broadcast o NPR)a near-daily habit.

Somewhere in the mid-80's, any Press Club speaker with even just a tangential relationship to economic policy began to commence their speeches with the words "Of course, we must globalize. Or similar fatalistic pronouncements on Free Trade.

The idea sprang forth already decided. Tied up with a ribbon on it and seemingly adhered to by every body with a pulse in D.C.

It was over. No debate (except for the un-scripted Ross Perot's forcing of it later on).

I used to actually yell at the radio "Says WHO?!?!?". "When was that decided?!?!". Where was the meeting? Who attended?!?!

I still feel that if it could be uncovered just how this issue as fete' accompli was orchestrated.... we would understand everything about this country and it's last 30 years of history.