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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So, fans of free trade, how does shipping jobs out of America create jobs for America? [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)6. I really
"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."
FDRs Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade
by David Woolner
<...>
The driving force behind this effort was FDRs 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 FDRs 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, FDRs attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hulls 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, Hulls 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 Hulls 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 worlds 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 administrations 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 Americas 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/
by David Woolner
<...>
The driving force behind this effort was FDRs 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 FDRs 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, FDRs attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hulls 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, Hulls 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 Hulls 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 worlds 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 administrations 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 Americas 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/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
72 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So, fans of free trade, how does shipping jobs out of America create jobs for America? [View all]
Zalatix
Apr 2012
OP
That's what corporations have done to f**k up our country, and why our country is in this
Sarah Ibarruri
Apr 2012
#2
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
But this isn't the WWII era when the infrastructures of Japan and Europe lay in ruins.....
marmar
Apr 2012
#8
No, but TVs, clothing, shoes, appliances, toys, and just about every other consumer product were
Lydia Leftcoast
Apr 2012
#34
Your response shows you didn't read my question, so DO NOT lecture me about research.
Zalatix
Apr 2012
#24
It is not bogus. You once again did not read. I did put a question mark after it.
Zalatix
Apr 2012
#29
Good luck with putting toddlers to work on your revived AMC Pacer assembly line
KurtNYC
Apr 2012
#63
Ironic that you should use the phrase "Jobs making iPods" with respect to Chinese labour. (NT)
Heywood J
Apr 2012
#44
I have outsourced my DU posting to China, here is the answer (which cost me only 18-cents):
KurtNYC
Apr 2012
#48
Yup, we know that. The problem is nobody's buying what you're selling. We all see right through it.
Zalatix
Apr 2012
#57
Better question is who is going to fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.?
NNN0LHI
Apr 2012
#71