Meet the Father of Free Trade.

[Drunken Irishman]

[jwirr]

1. Yes, but his trade agreements were about the import and export of real products. They were not

about corporate profits and power.

[pampango]

30. He heavily taxed corporations and the rich people who owned them and regulated those corporations

to control their power. Thus making sure that the benefits of trade were widely shared.

[Hoyt]

54. Exactly. That's the key.

[jwirr]

65. Yes, but I don't know that those people will not just leave the country if we try that now. They

own the wealth, they own the corporations and they are getting more and more power everyday. Corporations and their shareholders seem to get rid of national boundaries. Their loyalty to any nation is now in question IMO.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. Let em leave and good riddance; they just need to forfeit their assets. That'd be fine with me.

[jwirr]

67. I agree.

[pampango]

69. They might. Probably not. They have not left Europe, Canada, etc. in any significant way.

The rich and corporations controlled even more of the wealth when FDR took office than they do today. He probably respected their power (in a 'know your opponent' kind of way) but he was not afraid of them.

[jwirr]

71. Yes,that is true.

[raouldukelives]

70. Exactly. He wouldn't be very pleased with oil companies getting billions of free dollars

While at the same time actively destroying the very fabric that enables our species, as well as countless others, to survive, comfortably, in the world they are knowingly creating.

[Jesus Malverde]

2. Lulz

[joshcryer]

15. +1

So many people don't get it.

[okaawhatever]

3. True that. nt

[sabrina 1]

4. Lol, not even a 'nice try'.

Have fun though trying to defend something that the man you chose to use would be appalled by.

[brentspeak]

5. FDR's view of free trade was that

Last edited Wed May 13, 2015, 11:45 PM - Edit history (3)

American companies would have subsidiary production facilities in foreign lands which would make products for sale in those respective lands. Meanwhile, those same American companies would simultaneously have American production facilities which would make products to be sold here within the United States.

The very last thing FDR and subsequent Democrats up through LBJ ever wanted was for US companies to relocate production facilities out of the United States, with those offshored facilities then selling foreign-made products back to American consumers, thereby directly displacing American employees or otherwise enlarging the labor pool so as to reduce American workers' wages, benefits, and bargaining power.

That was never supposed to happen. That was the nightmare scenario that FDR and his successors -- up to, but not including Clinton -- never wanted.

Then along came Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and the rest of the corporate Democrats who basically helped the GOP plunge the knife deep into the American working persons' and middle class' back with multinational corporate lobbyist-written pseudo "free trade" deals.

[RiverLover]

8. Thank you.^^^

This needs to be OP here. It's so sad to see the ignorance here, especially as a headliner.

[Art_from_Ark]

56. I don't think it's so much "ignorance" as it is

"deception".

[joshcryer]

11. He created the WTO and IMF.

Literally the two biggest free trade organizations on the planet. This is so wrong on so many levels. Even Keynes, at the Brettron Woods Conference, argued for a completely different system.

It is absolutely asinine to blame Clinton or Obama for the WTO and IMF. Just insane and completely unfair.

Obama, right or wrong, believes he's fixed US trade agreements with TPP. Give him credit for believing, don't bash him for working in FDR's system which enabled it.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. How old are you, again?

"Obama, right or wrong, believes he's fixed US trade agreements with TPP. Give him credit for believing, don't bash him for working in FDR's system which enabled it."

Revise history much?

[joshcryer]

31. Um, FDR created the IBRD and IMF.

It doesn't take a high school education to understand this. The IBRD later became the WTO. FDR literally led the foundation for globalization and you are accusing me of revising history? Seriously?

[MrMickeysMom]

75. Yeah, josh…. I am...

I am seriously doing that.

[Exilednight]

79. Complete revisionism. FDR does not equal Obama. FDR undetstood the

Need to balance lifting the rest of the world out of poverty while keeping production in the US.

We can not be a country where our only chief exports are military weaponry and aircraft and expect to stay on top of the economical ladder. China has figured this out, why can't Obama?

[Scootaloo]

59. The WTO dates from 1994. GATT was established in 1948. Roosevelt was kind of dead by then.

And the IMF was not conceived as a "free trade organization" but rather as a resource for developing nations - this goal has been hugely corrupted in the years since 1944.

[pampango]

64. GATT was part of FDR's ITO. It was supposed to be a temporary organization to facilitate trade until

the ITO became operational.

Congress would not approve GATT, even as a temporary transition to the ITO, so Truman approved it as an executive order. When congress later refused also to ratify the ITO, GATT remained in effect until it became the WTO in 1994.

[jwirr]

68. I have often thought that we would be much better off if each region provided jobs and products

for their own area. Of course there would still be international trade for things like bananas with are grown elsewhere. There are enough people in every area to be able to support this idea IMO.

[moondust]

73. Yes.

Last edited Thu May 14, 2015, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)

In those days I think trade between nations was thought to be an alternative to war between nations; trading partnerships would help keep the peace. I doubt FDR even dreamed that multinational corporations would one day shut down their operations in the U.S., throwing millions out of work, move those jobs to cheap labor markets abroad and ship the goods back to the U.S. to sell to Americans. That's not trade, it's exploitation on a global scale.

Some factors making global exploitation unimaginable in those days included the higher cost of international transporation and the lack of accessible communication networks. As those changed, I've wondered if Nixon didn't go to China on behalf of businessmen who were salivating at the prospects of all that potential cheap labor and all those potential customers.

[hifiguy]

84. Cant add anything to that excellent history lesson.

[neverforget]

6. Who can argue with that? I guess the investor courts and the intellectual property provisions are

okay.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. The Father of Free Trade was the first man to be run over by a locomotive

It's true:

William Huskisson PC (11 March 1770 – 15 September 1830) was a British statesman, financier, and Member of Parliament for several constituencies, including Liverpool. He is best known today, however, as the world's first widely reported railway casualty as he was run over and fatally wounded by George Stephenson's pioneering locomotive engine Rocket.
...
Huskisson had been a highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire and an architect of the doctrine of free trade, but had fallen out with Wellington in 1828 over the issue of parliamentary reform and had resigned from the cabinet. Hoping to be reconciled with Wellington, he approached the Duke's railway carriage and shook his hand. Distracted by the Duke, he did not notice an approaching locomotive on the adjacent track, Rocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Huskisson

Belief in free trade became an enduring characteristic of British liberalism in the 19th century but its roots were complex. In part it stemmed from popular Radical hostility to monopoly in all its forms, in part from the diffusion of Smithian and Ricardian political economy and in part from the administrative pragmatism, reinforced by evangelical religion, of the liberal Tories in the 1820s.

These latter two forces were best expressed in the policies of the ‘father of free trade’ William Huskisson at the Board of Trade, but even Huskisson largely failed in his attempts to reform the Corn Laws, imposed in 1815 on a wave of post-war agrarian patriotism.

http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/history/free-trade-and-the-repeal-of-the-corn-laws/

Though, actually, more people would say 'the Father of Free Trade' was Daniel Riccardo, since his theory of competitive advantage underlies it all.

[joshcryer]

14. FDR passed WTO and IMF.

His signature has set forth all US trade policy for nearly a century. Literally.

[Major Hogwash]

9. Fear of the unknown is a hard fear for some to overcome.

Some never do!
That's why conservatives are so popular here today, they don't want change, they strive to maintain the status quo.

[cali]

10. bzzzt Flailing fail. falling down drunk fail.

The trade agreements of that era bear little resemblance to those of the FTA era, roughly commencing with NAFTA.

I'd explain it to you, but why bother explaining things to people who root their support of or opposition to policy on faith in a politician.

[joshcryer]

12. The WTO and IMF "bear little resemblance" to NAFTA?

WTF is happening. Why bother explaining things? Your statement is literally nonsense if you don't want to substantiate it.

[cali]

16. Trade deals have become less and less, since NAFTA, about the nuts and bolts of

trade as exemplified by tariffs, and more and more about such things as protectionist provisions for Pharmaceutical and Tech companies, as well as uniform governing principles (read U.S.) in fields such as financial services.

Not the same thing. Get it?

[MrMickeysMom]

22. No…. the poster DOES NOT get it...

Maybe we should talk about the protectionist provisions and line them up right after Citizen's United and the elections.

Or, maybe we should just draw out political cartoons of with the theme being traffic lights. Then, we could show regular drivers stopping for pedestrians who don't run over pedestrians. But, perhaps due to certain privileged drivers who don't have to stop for pedestrians.

You can't make it simple enough for some ideologues.

[joshcryer]

25. Do you support the WTO and IMF?

[joshcryer]

36. WTO (IBRD) and IMF are inherently NOT protectionist.

To act as if they are is the height of idiocy.

[cali]

62. focus, josh- and try to respond to the facts:

First of all, I haven't claimed that the WTO and IMF are protectionist- and I wouldn't, as I don't know enough about them to make a claim one way or the other. I am claiming that the draft of the IP chapter of the TPP is inherently protectionist. Yes, it's a draft, but these are USTR negotiators priorities. It's very unlikely that there have been substantive changes:

Where Is The 'Free Trade' In The TPP IP Chapter?

People have pointed out how KORUS -- the free trade" agreement that the US signed with South Korea a few years ago, which included draconian intellectual property rules, is "the model" for "modern free trade agreements." It was used as the basis for ACTA, and now it's often pointed to as the model for the TPP as well. When KORUS was first being debated, we wondered why a "free trade" agreement would include rules for stricter monopolies, as that seemed like the exact opposite of free trade. Free trade is about knocking down the walls to protectionism, not building more monopoly power. And yet, that's exactly what it did -- creating tremendous problems to the point that South Korea is now looking for ways to get out of the intellectual property requirements of the agreement.

And yet, defenders of the TPP still point to KORUS as the "model" for TPP and talk it up as if it's been a wonderful and successful agreement. However, it seems that others are noticing that there doesn't appear to be any "free trade" in this "free trade agreement." Instead, it's purely mercantilist cronyism, designed to limit economic growth and public welfare, to benefit a few large legacy companies.

Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.

All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines. It is interesting to see how much worse the TPP is than the WTO's Trips (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights). This, too, was a massive rip-off of consumers and patients throughout the world, but after years of struggle by health advocates and public interest groups, some of its worst features were attenuated, and further consolidation of pharmaceutical companies' interests were blocked.

So why are we increasing protectionism and putting in greater monopoly power in a so-called "free trade" agreement? Because these legacy companies and the USTR long ago learned that if you say something on the label, but then put the exact opposite in the Where Is The 'Free Trade' In The TPP IP Chapter?
from the still-searching... dept
People have pointed out how KORUS -- the free trade" agreement that the US signed with South Korea a few years ago, which included draconian intellectual property rules, is "the model" for "modern free trade agreements." It was used as the basis for ACTA, and now it's often pointed to as the model for the TPP as well. When KORUS was first being debated, we wondered why a "free trade" agreement would include rules for stricter monopolies, as that seemed like the exact opposite of free trade. Free trade is about knocking down the walls to protectionism, not building more monopoly power. And yet, that's exactly what it did -- creating tremendous problems to the point that South Korea is now looking for ways to get out of the intellectual property requirements of the agreement.

And yet, defenders of the TPP still point to KORUS as the "model" for TPP and talk it up as if it's been a wonderful and successful agreement. However, it seems that others are noticing that there doesn't appear to be any "free trade" in this "free trade agreement." Instead, it's purely mercantilist cronyism, designed to limit economic growth and public welfare, to benefit a few large legacy companies.

Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.

All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines. It is interesting to see how much worse the TPP is than the WTO's Trips (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights). This, too, was a massive rip-off of consumers and patients throughout the world, but after years of struggle by health advocates and public interest groups, some of its worst features were attenuated, and further consolidation of pharmaceutical companies' interests were blocked.

So why are we increasing protectionism and putting in greater monopoly power in a so-called "free trade" agreement? Because these legacy companies and the USTR long ago learned that if you say something on the label, but then put the exact opposite in the Where Is The 'Free Trade' In The TPP IP Chapter?
from the still-searching... dept
People have pointed out how KORUS -- the free trade" agreement that the US signed with South Korea a few years ago, which included draconian intellectual property rules, is "the model" for "modern free trade agreements." It was used as the basis for ACTA, and now it's often pointed to as the model for the TPP as well. When KORUS was first being debated, we wondered why a "free trade" agreement would include rules for stricter monopolies, as that seemed like the exact opposite of free trade. Free trade is about knocking down the walls to protectionism, not building more monopoly power. And yet, that's exactly what it did -- creating tremendous problems to the point that South Korea is now looking for ways to get out of the intellectual property requirements of the agreement.

And yet, defenders of the TPP still point to KORUS as the "model" for TPP and talk it up as if it's been a wonderful and successful agreement. However, it seems that others are noticing that there doesn't appear to be any "free trade" in this "free trade agreement." Instead, it's purely mercantilist cronyism, designed to limit economic growth and public welfare, to benefit a few large legacy companies.

Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.

All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines. It is interesting to see how much worse the TPP is than the WTO's Trips (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights). This, too, was a massive rip-off of consumers and patients throughout the world, but after years of struggle by health advocates and public interest groups, some of its worst features were attenuated, and further consolidation of pharmaceutical companies' interests were blocked.

So why are we increasing protectionism and putting in greater monopoly power in a so-called "free trade" agreement? Because these legacy companies and the USTR long ago learned that if you say something on the label, but then put the exact opposite in the Where Is The 'Free Trade' In The TPP IP Chapter?
from the still-searching... dept
People have pointed out how KORUS -- the free trade" agreement that the US signed with South Korea a few years ago, which included draconian intellectual property rules, is "the model" for "modern free trade agreements." It was used as the basis for ACTA, and now it's often pointed to as the model for the TPP as well. When KORUS was first being debated, we wondered why a "free trade" agreement would include rules for stricter monopolies, as that seemed like the exact opposite of free trade. Free trade is about knocking down the walls to protectionism, not building more monopoly power. And yet, that's exactly what it did -- creating tremendous problems to the point that South Korea is now looking for ways to get out of the intellectual property requirements of the agreement.

And yet, defenders of the TPP still point to KORUS as the "model" for TPP and talk it up as if it's been a wonderful and successful agreement. However, it seems that others are noticing that there doesn't appear to be any "free trade" in this "free trade agreement." Instead, it's purely mercantilist cronyism, designed to limit economic growth and public welfare, to benefit a few large legacy companies.

Exhibit A was released by WikiLeaks last week: the latest draft of the "intellectual property" chapter of the agreement, one of 24 (out of 29) chapters that do not have to do with trade. This chapter has provisions that will make it easier for pharmaceutical companies to get patents, including in developing countries; have these patents for more years; and extend the ability of these companies to limit access to the scientific data that is necessary for other researchers to develop new medicines. And the United States is even pushing for provisions that would allow surgical procedures to be patented – provisions that may be currently against US law.

All of these measures will help raise the price of medicines and health care, which will strain public health systems and price some people out of the market for important medicines. It is interesting to see how much worse the TPP is than the WTO's Trips (Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights). This, too, was a massive rip-off of consumers and patients throughout the world, but after years of struggle by health advocates and public interest groups, some of its worst features were attenuated, and further consolidation of pharmaceutical companies' interests were blocked.

So why are we increasing protectionism and putting in greater monopoly power in a so-called "free trade" agreement? Because these legacy companies and the USTR long ago learned that if you say something on the label, but then put the exact opposite in the package, the press, the public and plenty of politicians will pretend that what you say on the label is actually in the package.

<snip>

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131119/16513725296/where-is-free-trade-tpp-ip-chapter.shtml

I don't want to inundate you with more here; you can go to any number of public interest groups with a focus on IP and find much the same analysis- from EFF to Professor Flynn's InfoJustice blog. Also you can read what public health experts and organizations have to say on the "evergreening" of drug patents.

You are displaying increasing petulance and you're flailing about piteously- which I find rather odd. There's substantive evidence to back my claims. I link to that evidence. You just lash out childishly and make declarations without even attempting to back them up. Why? Could it be you're aware of the dearth of evidence for your "argument"?

[Bonobo]

76. He sure shut up quickly.

Convincing people you are the smartest one in the room only works until someone shows up armed with facts.

[joshcryer]

13. This is TWM level discussion.

But given the few replies and remarkably few recs, it's gone over many peoples heads.

FDR create the WTO and IMF. The man is responsible for literally US foreign trade for the past 50+ years. Literally. He shaped it, he fashioned it.

[cali]

17. Say what, josh? I thought FDR was long dead in 1995 when the WTO

came into existence.

Are you referring to GATT? Not the WTO. The forerunner to it, but not the WTO.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Even the GATT negotiations didn't start until 1946

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/gattdocs_e.htm

[joshcryer]

28. IBRD was the foundation for WTO.

To ignore this fact is to ignore history.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. The World Bank? it's quite a different beast (nt)

[joshcryer]

38. IBRD is the BANK.

The addition of the International Development Association was a restructuring of the World Bank, it wasn't "quite a different beast."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bank_for_Reconstruction_and_Development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Development_Association

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Bank_Group

FDR created the IBRD. Fact.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Yes, and that is not, in any form, GATT, the WTO, or free trade agreements

Those organisations are about loans to developing countries. GATT, which is about trade (the subject of this thread), didn't start negotiations until 1946, as we have seen.

[joshcryer]

40. How does this happen without IBRD or the IMF?

I'll note the comments about the IMF are notably absent in this thread. It's all a focus on the World Bank because one poster (me) deems FDR's efforts with the IBRD = WTO.

Because I'm not a weasel who won't admit the obvious. FDR's trade efforts were pro-globalization and were the foundation, the literal foundation, for all trade within the world with regards to the US going forward.

He fucked up by not going with the international clearing union. But we can't say that because FDR is a saint or something.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. The IMF is about international monetary stability

It's not primarily about tariffs or free trade, although since trade is a big part of the international monetary system, it will have things to say about them.

Why the IMF was created and how it works

The IMF, also known as the Fund, was conceived at a UN conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, United States, in July 1944. The 44 countries at that conference sought to build a framework for economic cooperation to avoid a repetition of the competitive devaluations that had contributed to the Great Depression of the 1930s.

The IMF's responsibilities: The IMF's primary purpose is to ensure the stability of the international monetary system—the system of exchange rates and international payments that enables countries (and their citizens) to transact with each other. The Fund's mandate was updated in 2012 to include all macroeconomic and financial sector issues that bear on global stability.

https://www.imf.org/external/about.htm

"FDR is a saint or something" - well, yes, the OP appears to be an attempt to say 'you should support TPP, because FDR was "the father of free trade"'. However, that ignores historical reality (political fights over free trade came up long before FDR, and economists were talking about it earlier still), and I don't think you helped things by claiming he created the WTO when he was really just one person in the history of trade agreements. You certainly don't get to criticise people about history or facts when you're so fast and loose with them yourself.

FDR did oppose the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and undid some of it. That would be more relevant to this than the post-war GATT talks and the WTO, after he died.

[joshcryer]

26. Bretton Woods Conference

The WTO is just a evolution of the IBRD.

Learn some history.

[cali]

48. Trying to use FDR to bolster your argument

is both bizarre and rather disingenuous. I can't imagine that FDR would support the TPP.

Also, what something evolves FROM, is not what it becomes.

And sorry, josh, but yeah, I know about BW. My dad, the corporatist, made that sort of topic de rigueur at the dinner table. There are some advantages to growing up in a family with several generations of successful "corporatists" on both sides. You can't help but learn quite a bit- especially considering my father had a distinguished academic background in history, anthropology and sociology.

My father (who exported a lot of his computer peripherals) was strongly opposed to NAFTA despite it benefiting his business. His rationale was not only job loss, but that it would eventually lead to ever larger trade deficits- and he was, of course, from a generation that thought, as a whole, that trade deficits were damaging. That view has changed quite a bit over the years, and the consensus now seems to be that trade deficits are more neutral than good or bad. On that, I really don't know enough to weigh in knowledgeably.

Anyway, that was a cheap and silly shot. I don't claim to be any kind of an expert, but you know damn well that I have some basic knowledge- and now you know more of the reason why. I literally grew up learning this stuff. Couldn't be avoided.

[Bonobo]

18. Yes, Josh and the world is exactly like it was back then too!

Other than little changes like, say, China, Russia, Germany, Japan, SE Asia, etc...

Other than that, this is a perfectly relevant statement which bears greatly on the current conversation about the TPP.

[cali]

20. hey,didn't you know that FDR came back from the dead in 1995

to create the WTO?

[joshcryer]

27. The world is far more interconnected.

Thanks to FDR's efforts under the Bretton Woods Conference.

Keynes warned the world about the effects, but was ignored.

[Bonobo]

44. Yeah, so what?

That has little to do with the point I am making.

To pretend that we live in the same world that existed then - a world of Empires, when Europe was still encircling the rest of the world, taking its resources and holding on to the reins of manufacturing power - is simply ridiculous.

The world now is one in which international conglomerates' power over the world's resources has supplanted government control and the game now is to leverage that corporate power to amass wealth in the rarified air of the ultra rich.

So yes, we are more interconnected, but as someone once said: "What the fuck does that have to do with your argument?"

[joshcryer]

45. So it was OK to pass those trade agreements then?

And not now? When the world is 100x more interconnected and 90% of the goods you buy on a given day are made in foreign countries? Really?

The means of production have not changed substantially. Shit, even FDR was a multi-millionaire back then. The only substantial difference is that the income gap is larger but it's hardly significant enough to merit defending world trade then vs now.

I think FDR fucked up at Bretton Woods. Big deal. If he went with the International Clearing Union concept that Keynes proposed we probably would not be looking at the same income / wealth gap that the world is experiencing.

But regardless the gap is closing (yes, it is closing), making it academic at this point. What's done is done.

FDR fucked up and there are repercussions to this day. So what. People are fallible. Can't we just accept history and not bury our heads in the sand?

[Bonobo]

50. Now you are talking a different conversation.

I am merely pointing out that it was a different world and that there was no power born from a concentration of manufacturing in a foreign country that was threatening the livelihood and health of the United States.

If there HAD been such a threat, I do not believe FDR would have passed trade agreements like the TTP.

[pampango]

34. So FDR is irrelevant to the 21st century? Is that the new liberal point of view?

Does his 'irrelevance' apply only to his beliefs about trade and the role of international organizations? Are his views about progressive taxes, strong unions, corporate regulation and the importance of the safety net also 'irrelevant'?

I would argue that the principles that FDR believed in are very relevant today.

[cali]

37. I'd argue that in many ways, he isn't very germane

he couldn't have foreseen the issues about trade in today's world. IP alone, iis another universe from that which existed 70 years ago.

I'd argue that his prinicples are relevant today too. I've always been hesitant to play the what would the founding fathers think, and it's a variation to play what would FDR think, but I'll dip my toe in:

What do you think FDR would think of the protectionist provisions such as drug evergreening in the IP chapter?

[marmar]

19. Hoo boy. The spinning is growing ever more desperate.

[99Forever]

24. Another lie.

Neoliberals have zero integrity.

[pampango]

29. "FDR was the father of modern globalization, a fact that both modern Democrats and Republicans choose

to ignore."

In 1933 he inherited from Herbert Hoover a country with limited trade and no participation in global organizations. He died in a country that was the driving force behind international organizations such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, GATT and the International Trade Organization (rejected by congress) and a country of expanding trade.

republicans fought him every step of the way on these. Their base still wants the US out of the UN and the WTO and practically all the other international organizations and agreements. Some things never change.

[joshcryer]

33. +1

The world is how it is now due to FDR's influence, but you will only get nasty snarky replies for recognizing this history.

We should not neglect that Keynes was against the WTO-IMF approach and wanted to instead implement a International Clearing Union which would not have resulted in the global inequality we see today.

[cali]

41. We don't live in that world. It's less than honest to pretend we do

we live, if you will, in the world of post-modern globalization. There are reasons that liberals supported him then and there are reasons that liberals oppose the tpp now. They do not oppose trade. They are not isolationists.

The benefits of the TPP will largely flow to corporations and the wealthy. I can't imagine for a fucking second that FDR would support it.

[pampango]

47. You are right. We don't live in the same world that FDR did. We live in the world he helped create.

we live, if you will, in the world of post-modern globalization.

Which I think would not surprise the "father of globalization". Of course, he undoubted expected 'globalization' to develop here in the way that as in Europe with domestic protections that he adopted for the US.

There are reasons that liberals supported him then and there are reasons that liberals oppose the tpp now.

It was not my understanding that the OP was directed at TPP but dealt more with 'free trade' which, arguably, is not what TPP is principally about. FDR's ITO went well beyond trade rules to include arbitration of disputes, labor standards, business regulation, investor protection and a commitment to full employment.

I would argue that FDR's approach to trade is very relevant today. If TPP does not much the same, it is not consistent with FDR trade views and should be rejected.

The benefits of the TPP will largely flow to corporations and the wealthy. I can't imagine for a fucking second that FDR would support it.

The benefits of the entire American economy (the 23% involving trade and the 77% that is purely domestic) largely flow the wealthy. We don't change that flow by arguing about trade policy. We change that flow the same way FDR reversed the record level of income income inequality that he inherited - through progressive taxes, corporate regulation, strong unions and a good safety net.

It is hard to imagine what FDR's ghost would think of TPP. My guess is it would take his ghost a long, long time to adjust to the fact that we have regressed back to the republican policies of Coolidge and Hoover (other than the isolationism and high tariffs they promoted) that he worked so hard to reverse.

[Hoyt]

55. The benefits are taxed, and can be taxed more.

[Elwood P Dowd]

77. Are you insane? Taxes? The repukes are in the process of eliminating taxes on the wealthy and

large corporations. They control the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and run the majority of the states. Taxes on the wealthy and large corporations will continue to decline. Many of the largest corporations in the USA who are making a killing on these fake free trade bills pay nothing in taxes. Some of them get government subsidies on top of paying no taxes. If they want to close an American factory and move it to China, the taxpayers help pay their moving expenses. Obama at least tried to stop that practice, but the repukes in Congress voted that down along with a handful of so called "Democrats".

[Hoyt]

78. They are taxed, although as I've said, the regs need to be tightened. As to insanity?

[Octafish]

32. FDR opposed FASCISM

Gee? TPP puts unimaginable power in the hands of the state and corporations. So, FDR would have opposed NAFTA, TPP, etc., and all the rest of the anti-democratic trade deals, including the corporate friendly, white shirt, shiny shoes variety, that put power in the hands of the wealthy and their holding companies.

[pampango]

43. FDR used the power of the state to control corporations and the rich. He also proposed

the International Trade Organization which would have put control of trade in the hands of a multinational organization. He did not view that as "anti-democratic".

We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent on the well-being of other nations far away. We have learned that we must live as men, not as ostriches, nor as dogs in the manger.
We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community.

https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=fdr+quote+international&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[Octafish]

52. ITO isn't WTO

A brief history of GATT

The WTO's predecessor, the GATT, was established on a provisional basis after the Second World War in the wake of other new multilateral institutions dedicated to international economic cooperation - notably the "Bretton Woods" institutions now known as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

The original 23 GATT countries were among over 50 which agreed a draft Charter for an International Trade Organization (ITO) - a new specialized agency of the United Nations. The Charter was intended to provide not only world trade disciplines but also contained rules relating to employment, commodity agreements, restrictive business practices, international investment and services.

In an effort to give an early boost to trade liberalization after the Second World War - and to begin to correct the large overhang of protectionist measures which remained in place from the early 1930s - tariff negotiations were opened among the 23 founding GATT "contracting parties" in 1946. This first round of negotiations resulted in 45,000 tariff concessions affecting $10 billion - or about one-fifth - of world trade. It was also agreed that the value of these concessions should be protected by early - and largely "provisional" - acceptance of some of the trade rules in the draft ITO Charter. The tariff concessions and rules together became known as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and entered into force in January 1948.

Although the ITO Charter was finally agreed at a UN Conference on Trade and Employment in Havana in March 1948 ratification in national legislatures proved impossible in some cases. When the United States' government announced, in 1950, that it would not seek Congressional ratification of the Havana Charter, the ITO was effectively dead. Despite its provisional nature, the GATT remained the only multilateral instrument governing international trade from 1948 until the establishment of the WTO.

Although, in its 47 years, the basic legal text of the GATT remained much as it was in 1948, there were additions in the form of "plurilateral" - voluntary membership - agreements and continual efforts to reduce tariffs. Much of this was achieved through a series of "trade rounds".

CONTINUED...

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ355/choi/wtoroots.htm

Bretton Woods was in 1944. FDR passed in 1945, before ITO was even put together in 1948.

Honestly, to you think FDR would endorse today's TPP?

[pampango]

61. Never said that it was. It would have been much better than the WTO.

Bretton Woods was in 1944. FDR passed in 1945, before ITO was even put together in 1948.

All true. Bretton Woods which proposed the ITO along with the IMF and World Bank, was an FDR creature. After his death Truman negotiated the terms of the ITO with the other country members. The negotiations were not completed until 1948. Truman signed it, but congress refused to ratify FDR's idea.

Honestly, to you think FDR would endorse today's TPP?

He obviously was a supporter of the concept of multinational control of trade rules with arbitration to settle disputes. He also was a supporter of linking domestic policy, e.g. labor standards, business regulation, investor protection, a commitment to full employment, etc., (all in the ITO charter) to the rules of trade. IMHO, whether he would endorse TPP today would depend on whether it effectively links domestic policies to trade rules.

[Feron]

42. Well that makes it okay then...

It's possible for someone to be correct on some issues and horribly wrong on others.

I'm not afraid of trade, but I'm also not learning impaired. I've seen how NAFTA has hurt the country and the TPP is even worse.

[cascadiance]

46. But did he take away tariffs that protected industry using Americans to build products?

NOOO!!!!!!!

Unfortunately today's Republikans and Korporate Demokrats feel that this is necessary in "today's global economy", but it is just their code words to pay back their Korporate donors to provide them bottoms to race to.

We just fuel the world with increased demand based on us using huge personal debt (NOT government debt) to keep the global economy functioning. Without this debt, the world economy would be in worse collapse (especially our country) than it was before the earlier Republican depression (as they used to call it before it was revised to be called the "great" depression later).

We are headed for worse disasters when personal debt demand collapses, much like the housing market triggered an earlier start to this collapse when debt bought with collapsing home equity was no longer available and triggered a huge drop of demand from that segment of debt buying collapsed in 2008.

We need to restore the 90% tax rates to have those that have had the world's wealth redistributed to themselves to pay back that amount of money that they have stolen from us for the last few decades! That and more inheritance taxes instead of less of them that they've tried to push through new laws.

[pampango]

49. That is exactly what he did.

The 1936 republican party platform:

It secretly has made tariff agreements with our foreign competitors, flooding our markets with foreign commodities.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29639

He inherited very high tariffs from Herbert Hoover. He pushed RTAA through congress in 1934 precisely to lower tariffs. The trade agreements he negotiated via RTAA are what republicans were reacting against in their platform.

[Octafish]

53. You got to quote the 1936 GOP platform to connect FDR to supporting TPP?

LOL.

[pampango]

58. No. My response was to a post about tariffs. TPP has little to do with tariffs which are already low

with or without TPP.

[Romulox]

82. Kindred spirits. nt

[Rex]

57. Good thing this is not a history test, FDR is NOT the father of free trade.

A little known fella by the name of Adam Smith is the worlds first Capitalist and father of free trade.

[L0oniX]

60. YAwn ...another FDR hater.

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. If that means somewhere there's a fucked up stepdad...

I know who it is.

[whatchamacallit]

74. Meet the Mother of Inane OPs

[fadedrose]

81. Nothing with FDR qualifies under "inane"

even if you meant the author of the OP. Try another description worthy of FDR and those who still love him.

[whatchamacallit]

83. Yes, it was a response to

the OPs misappropriation of FDR's legacy. Easy now.

[MFrohike]

80. That isn't John C. Calhoun

The argument over trade in America goes a lot further back than the man from Duchess County. The original Nullification Acts by South Carolina were part of a fight over trade policy. In fact, until abolitionism got into full swing, the main argument between the North and South was the protection of domestic industries, primarily located in the North, to the detriment of the South.