Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
6. I really
Wed Apr 4, 2012, 12:17 PM
Apr 2012

"So, fans of free trade, how does shipping jobs out of America create jobs for America?"

...hate straw men: the notion that people who support trade support "shipping jobs out of America."

FDR’s Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade

by David Woolner

<...>

The driving force behind this effort was FDR’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who considered the passage of Smoot-Hawley an unmitigated disaster. Hull had been arguing in favor of freer trade for decades, both as a Democratic congressman and later senator from Tennessee. Given the long-standing protectionist tendencies of Congress — which reached their zenith with the passage of Smoot-Hawley, the highest tariff in U.S. history — Hull faced an uphill struggle to accomplish this task. He also had to overcome FDR’s initial reluctance to embrace his ideas, as the president preferred the policies of the “economic nationalists” within his administration during his first year in office. By 1934, however, FDR’s attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hull’s proposed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act — a landmark piece of legislation that fundamentally altered the way in which the United States carried out foreign economic policy.

Convinced that the country was not ready for a truly multilateral approach to freer trade, Hull’s legislation sought to establish a system of bilateral agreements through which the United States would seek reciprocal reductions in the duties imposed on specific commodities with other interested governments. These reductions would then be generalized by the application of the most-favored-nation principle, with the result that the reduction accorded to a commodity from one country would then be accorded to the same commodity when imported from other countries. Well aware of the lingering resistance to tariff reduction that remained in Congress, Hull insisted that the power to make these agreements must rest with the president alone, without the necessity of submitting them to the Senate for approval. Under the act, the president would be granted the power to decrease or increase existing rates by as much as 50 percent in return for reciprocal trade concessions granted by the other country.

The 1934 Act granted the president this authority for three years, but it was renewed in 1937 and 1940, and over the course of this period the United States negotiated 22 reciprocal trade agreements. Of these, the two most consequential were the agreements with Canada, signed in 1935, and Great Britain, signed in 1938, in part because they signaled a move away from Imperial Preference and hence protectionism, and in part because they were regarded as indicative of growing solidarity among the Atlantic powers on the eve of the Second World War. It is also important to note that Hull, like many of his contemporaries, including FDR, regarded protectionism as antithetical to the average worker — first, because in Hull’s view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor, and secondly, because Hull believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite, who, as a consequence, wielded an undue or even corrupting influence in Washington. As such, both FDR and Hull saw the opening up of the world’s economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Indeed, by the time the U.S. entered the war, this conviction had intensified to the point where the two men concluded that the root cause of the war was economic depravity.

<...>

Of course, it is important to remember that the Roosevelt administration’s efforts to expand world trade were accompanied by such critical pieces of legislation as the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, which vastly strengthened the place of unions in American life. The 1930s and ’40s were also years in which the government engaged in an unprecedented level of investment in America’s infrastructure and industry — largely through deficit spending — that helped vastly expand our manufacturing base and render the United States the most powerful industrialized country in the world. Our efforts to expand trade and do away with protection were only part of a broader effort to reform the U.S. economy in such a way as to provide what FDR liked to call “economic security” for every American.

- more -

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/10/13/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-to-freer-trade-61632/

better question is... how are the invested in outsourcing fascisthunter Apr 2012 #1
That's what corporations have done to f**k up our country, and why our country is in this Sarah Ibarruri Apr 2012 #2
a better question is, why do members of the Democratic party accept this bart95 Apr 2012 #3
That's the only question for me. xchrom Apr 2012 #5
'the party of labor' bart95 Apr 2012 #7
The best question: Why isn't government wearing the blame? badtoworse Apr 2012 #4
Because nearly everybody in both parties did this to us and they knew exactly Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #67
What difference does it make that both parties did it? It's still the government's fault badtoworse Apr 2012 #68
I really ProSense Apr 2012 #6
But this isn't the WWII era when the infrastructures of Japan and Europe lay in ruins..... marmar Apr 2012 #8
So? That doesn't entitle them to American jobs. Zalatix Apr 2012 #9
Who said it did? ...... I was responding to the post right above mine. marmar Apr 2012 #10
it wasnt a straw man bart95 Apr 2012 #11
So ProSense Apr 2012 #12
a single issue that was never really tested bart95 Apr 2012 #14
i noticed your subtle change of wording bart95 Apr 2012 #16
"Reciprocal" or as Jefferson said, Egalitarian Thug Apr 2012 #23
It doesn't, and even the pro free-traders know it Populist_Prole Apr 2012 #13
False choice KurtNYC Apr 2012 #15
'contractors'? you mean like IT contractors? replacement has been MASSIVE bart95 Apr 2012 #17
Were Hondas made in the USA 35 years ago?? KurtNYC Apr 2012 #21
A failure? We still have tons of programmers in India servicing the US market Zalatix Apr 2012 #30
"IT contractors for American firms work HERE" - not all of them IDemo Apr 2012 #32
No, but TVs, clothing, shoes, appliances, toys, and just about every other consumer product were Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #34
Totally off-topic. Zalatix Apr 2012 #18
'It could have been made here, using American workers' bart95 Apr 2012 #19
It should be made here again. Zalatix Apr 2012 #20
I named 15 jobs that produce things that don't come from China KurtNYC Apr 2012 #22
Your response shows you didn't read my question, so DO NOT lecture me about research. Zalatix Apr 2012 #24
I read your question -- It is bogus. KurtNYC Apr 2012 #25
Your answer is bogus Hugabear Apr 2012 #28
It is not bogus. You once again did not read. I did put a question mark after it. Zalatix Apr 2012 #29
in your post 24 there was no question mark KurtNYC Apr 2012 #51
HAHAHAHAHA seriously, "how often do you beat your wife?" Zalatix Apr 2012 #52
I cited facts KurtNYC Apr 2012 #59
You cited irrelevant crap. You even admit we stopped making TVs Zalatix Apr 2012 #60
Perhaps a gain of 11 million net jobs is "irrelevant crap" to you KurtNYC Apr 2012 #61
Your argument just keeps taking on more holes. Zalatix Apr 2012 #62
Good luck with putting toddlers to work on your revived AMC Pacer assembly line KurtNYC Apr 2012 #63
As nicely as I can say this, Zalatix Apr 2012 #64
Housing? Really? Hugabear Apr 2012 #27
And has "sulfur" in the middle IDemo Apr 2012 #33
As of April 2009 Lowe's and Home Depot stopped selling Chinese drywall KurtNYC Apr 2012 #39
Wrong about X-rays Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #35
Speaking of video games... Hugabear Apr 2012 #37
Xbox is made in Brazil KurtNYC Apr 2012 #40
But not in the U.S.--that's the point Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #42
the games themselves are made her and sold here KurtNYC Apr 2012 #46
Blizzard is owned by Vivendi, which is a French company Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #49
ahh...but the jobs are still in Irvine KurtNYC Apr 2012 #54
Vivendi PURCHASED Blizzard Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #58
Fucking bullshit. Hugabear Apr 2012 #26
I'm sorry that happened to you and your wife. Zalatix Apr 2012 #38
Jobs making iPods, cell phones, solar panels, LEDs, video projectors, KurtNYC Apr 2012 #41
Still talking out of your ass Hugabear Apr 2012 #43
Ironic that you should use the phrase "Jobs making iPods" with respect to Chinese labour. (NT) Heywood J Apr 2012 #44
I used to work 14 and 16 hour days and KurtNYC Apr 2012 #47
Because tariffs aren't enough, we need to go further. Zalatix Apr 2012 #65
do you directly benefit from outsourcing American Labor? fascisthunter Apr 2012 #31
I bet he does--or else he's real young and truly does not realize Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #36
+1 Blue_Tires Apr 2012 #55
Betting that is a YES! SammyWinstonJack Apr 2012 #45
I have outsourced my DU posting to China, here is the answer (which cost me only 18-cents): KurtNYC Apr 2012 #48
But you haven't answered the question Lydia Leftcoast Apr 2012 #50
Probably. Zalatix Apr 2012 #53
I'm right here. I can hear you guys. KurtNYC Apr 2012 #56
Yup, we know that. The problem is nobody's buying what you're selling. We all see right through it. Zalatix Apr 2012 #57
Isn't 'free trade' an oxymoron? Rex Apr 2012 #66
"Trickle Down" was a scam. KansDem Apr 2012 #69
Ask Robert Reich; he was all for NAFTA as Clinton's Sec'y of Labor, closeupready Apr 2012 #70
Better question is who is going to fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.? NNN0LHI Apr 2012 #71
Excellent point Populist_Prole Apr 2012 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So, fans of free trade, h...»Reply #6