Democrats reject "free trade"

[welshTerrier2]

I've always understood that "free" trade meant trade that cared only about corporate profits and cared not at all about American jobs, global warming or worker safety. In other words, large multi-national corporations were "free" to do whatever the hell they wanted to do no matter who got hurt. Well, the good news is the mood on Capitol Hill is getting ugly on free trade. Americans have suffered with income stagnation, job loss and massive financial instability. Voters are worried and it looks like Democrats are finally starting to respond.

The "roaring nineties" may have looked good as the stock market soared but it was only a matter of time until our pro-corporate trade policies came home to roost. All the "wise men" lined up to sing the praises of globalization. Now, not so much ... The times they are a-changin ...

The answer may not be outright protectionism but clearly major changes to watch out for the interests of American workers are called for. Does your candidate offer something that will really make a difference, hopefully soon? If so, what's their plan? Hopefully, we'll get some tangible ideas and not a bunch of "level playing field" gibberish.

Oh, and btw, make sure you at least read the last sentence in the excerpt below!!

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/01/2915/

As US Income Stagnates, Democrats Reject Free Trade

The Democratic-led Congress won’t give President Bush the special authority he needs to negotiate future free-trade deals. The Senate is moving on retaliatory trade legislation against China. The House of Representatives won’t approve deals with three small neighboring Latin American countries. Global trade talks are near collapse.

Washington’s mood on free trade hasn’t been this negative in at least two decades, and a pullback is evident. Whether this becomes a full-blown return to protectionism remains to be seen. But for now Americans, and the politicians they elect to represent them, are in no mood to expand international trade. 0801 05

“For decades we took for granted that everyone agreed with us economists that free trade is good, protectionism is bad. Somewhere along the way, that stopped being the conventional wisdom,” acknowledged U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab, in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. “And whereas the default vote on a trade bill in Congress used to be a ‘yes’ vote, the default vote on a trade bill now in Congress is a ‘no’ vote.” Why? Because lots of people are no longer convinced that a rising tide of trade lifts all boats - and there’s evidence to back them up.

For three decades, the richest 10 percent of Americans have been growing even richer much faster than everyone else. Over the past five years, real wages for all the rest of American workers have been almost flat. Many blame globalization. <skip>

The report concluded that “over time, the pressures of global engagement spread economy-wide to alter the earnings of even those not directly exposed to international competition.”

Since 2000, the report said, most American workers have seen meager income growth. Only “a small share of workers at the very high end has enjoyed strong growth in incomes.” This occurred despite strong productivity growth, which in the past raised wages and salaries.

“Real income growth for workers has not been evenly distributed across all workers. That economic reality has an important political” consequence, Slaughter said in an interview. <skip>

By the end of September, Congress is expected to pass bills that would expand federal trade-adjustment assistance to a wider array of U.S. workers whose jobs have been lost to overseas competition. These could include engineers, software designers, accountants, call-center agents, even computer-aided architectural designers.

This shift in opinion against a long-dominant presumption that free trade provides broad net benefits to the U.S. economy is rooted not only in the experience of stagnant incomes, but it’s also gaining intellectual respectability as economic theory. Alan Blinder, a Princeton economist and a former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, was a lifelong free-trader, like most economists, until he began looking hard at how globalization is evolving.

Recently he shocked free-trade orthodoxy by warning that modern technology and trade practices will put at risk as many as 40 million American jobs within a decade or two.

[rockymountaindem]

1. This is one of the most underestimated issues around

While I don't think American workers ignore the importance of trade and the globalization phenomenon in their daily lives, it hasn't gotten traction among the beltway crowd and talking heads. Hopefully "those" people will start getting the message that trade issues are important to the rest of us.

[welshTerrier2]

3. the "common wisdom" was that "free trade" was good trade

and the codified restrictions of the WTO and NAFTA just made things much worse. we should get rid of all these "global" trade agreements and return to bi-lateral trade negotiations.

anyone who questioned the inevitability of globalization or questioned the wisdom of "free trade" was ostracized. everyone "knew" it was the right thing to do. the "liberals" made squeaky little noises about "a level playing field" or strengthening child labor laws or upgrading pollution standards or worker safety standards. that's a bottom up, incremental approach that, while a step in the right direction, is not going to repair the eventual hemorrhaging of American jobs. The effects thus far have boosted corporate profits (record high stock market) and investor returns but not workers' incomes. We've severely worsened our "rich get richer" caste system in the US.

and to those who just couldn't get enough of the roaring 90's under President Bill, his policies, just like bush's (both I and II) have led to the crisis we're now in. as the song goes "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin."

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Globalization is inevitable whether we like it or not

American jobs do get lost because of foreign competition, but we've seen throughout history that high protective tariffs are even more damaging. The fact is that we have to move beyond the days where millions of people worked in unskilled manufacturing. .
The middle class of the 20th century is gone and we need to build one for the 21st century. I can't say that I have all of the answers but I have a few places to start. Single-payer universal health care, unionization of the service sector, and a minimum wage of $9-$10 an hour.

[Skittles]

10. bullshit

accept it if you like, I prefer a good fight - I am not willing to settle for crappy goods and crappy service and THAT is what we are getting - free trade is not boosting the world economy, it is dragging us down to third world status

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Foreign goods aren't always crappy

Although there are certainly instances of this. I think the recent issue with Chinese products is a good reason to think about making some of that stuff in America again.

[brentspeak]

13. That is one of the most useless cliches of modern times

It says absolutely nothing.

Actually, you managed to use two pro-free-trade cliches in one sentence:

Cliche Number One: "Globalization is inevitable"

Cliche Number Two: "...tarriffs are even more damaging."

[Hippo_Tron]

18. So what's your alternative?

I don't support "free" trade because it does screw over workers here and abroad. The playing field does need to be leveled and trade can't be about a race to the bottom.

That being said, I don't think our economy can progress if our primary aim is to keep manufacturing jobs in the United States.

[bigwest]

21. You GOT it, bud!

The BS that's dished out about anyone who doesn't want the MANAGED TRADE under NAFTA, WTO, etc is anti-trade is just that, BS.
These agreements aren't about making anyone more prosperous(except the multi-nationals that is.)
They're about removing any and all restrictions on finding the cheapest near-slave labor anywhere and everywhere in the world. And then making sure, through the corporate dominated decisionmaking councils they set up, that no one anywhere has any remedy to address the problems that are created.
In 1992, Clinton said "I'll never sign any trade agreement that costs one American job." Then turned around and pushed NAFTA through over the objections of the unions and upwards of 60% of the American people.
How'd he do it? By maintaining all the Repugs that were already on board and then promising enough pork to just enough Democrats to squeak it through.
And the result?
--Whole industries in the US going first to Mexico, then to Asia.
--The collapse of the Peso.
--The destruction of the Mexican subsistence farming economies because of the flood of cheap grain going south of the border from American and Canadian industrial farms causing a flood of hungry impoverished peasants moving to the Mexican urban centers and of course across the border.
The whole thing was a scam from beginning to end courtesy of our friends in the GOP and the DLC.

And of course the ultimate prize is the Walmartization of the planet. Chinese goods made by prisoners, children, and workers with NO rights to organize flooding the planet.

It's the ultimate short-term thinking. Hey, it's cheap right now. Too bad it's destroying the middle class.
Trade is great. I'm all for it.
Let's work out bi-lateral trade agreements that are in the longterm best interests of the American people, not the multinationals and their country club conservative/Lexus Liberal allies!

And let's tell the multi-nationals that they're welcome to sell their products here---but the costs of their products must reflect their TRUE costs.
The cost of the pollution in the countries where they are made and the cost to the US in lost jobs, health care, dying communities, etc.

Cheap "stuff" is great.
Too bad it's not really cheap.
We just pay for it in other, hidden ways.

[madfloridian]

2. Good for them.

Good news.

[welshTerrier2]

4. it really is ...

there's gold in them thar hills if they handle it correctly ...

[undergroundpanther]

5. Fuck"free trade"

Melamine in pet food, relaxed regulations,and privatizing of water,montsano fucking up the food supply with their mad scientist genetic tinkering..Oh, and fuck the damn North American Union!!! Fuck ALL the globalists and their "free trade" Scams and the slaves they want..And if anything.. remember corporations are not people, they are a paper fiction, they do not deserve privacy and rights like human beings.The pigs running these corporations do not know when to say they have enough so we might as well tell them when they have enough for our OWN sakes,profit must be capped so corporations can't BUY our political system away from us, and if a company fucks people over, liquidate the company assets and the Ceo's personal assets and pay back the people the company shafted or hurt in full. WE do not owe anything to this psychopathic corporate system. It's a lie a paper fiction,It ain't working for no one but the wealthy pigs.It's a piece of shit and the market is a HUGE ponzi scam. The "invisible hand" of the market funny it's always in the pockets of the poor and working class the most, Because it's a reverse robin hood pickpocket..And it's not invisible it's privatized.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=104
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6346

[welshTerrier2]

6. right on !!!

oops ... sorry, flashback ... i mean, those are some interesting ideas you have there ...

it might be cool to sharpen a few guillotines ... i'm not suggesting anything on the scale of the French Revolution mind you ... maybe just an occasional head or two to keep those CEO's just a little more honest ... maybe put it on one of those reality tv shows ... probably should get a band as an opening act to attract the young people ... hmmmmmmm, i think this could really work ...

[undergroundpanther]

7. Who doesen't want to be a billionaire?..now

*smirk*

[KillCapitalism]

8. Good news.

We need to support FAIR trade instead of "free" trade.

[robcon]

11. Free trade and free trade agreements should be the linchpin of our economic plans

Democrats have traditionally stood for lower tariffs and other impediments, no subsidies and freedom of commerce across the globe. Now is the time to seal more free trade agreements.

[brentspeak]

14. Wrong.

Dead wrong, actually. Democrats have traditionally stood for fair trade practices, even if it wasn't known by the moniker of "fair trade" in the past.

FDR, JFK, Truman, etc. pictured "free trade" as working like this: American companies building manufacturing plants in developing countries to provide employment for the locals there. The products made in those overseas factories would then be sold to consumers in those developing countries where the products were built. Meanwhile, those same American companies would retain existing manufacturing facilities right here at home.

The 20th century Democrats never in their worst nightmares imagined a situation where American corporations would actually move the factories overseas, and then for those relocated factories to make products which would then be shipped back to and sold within the USA. That is the last thing Democrats had in mind.

FDR, JFK, and Truman would be apoplectic if they could see how we've turned into a cheap labor economy, not to mention how outraged they would be to discover that their historical personae were misappropriated by pro-cheap-labor advocates.

[Totally Committed]

12. "Free" trade and globalization are so underestimated as issues!

Not only do they put AMerican jobs at risk, they keep poor people (world-wide) poor, while keeping the rich rich.

I don't know as much as you do about the specifics, obviously, but being as concerned with poverty as an issue, I plan on learning more.

Thanks for always having the most interesting, thought-provoking, and challenging threads. You consistently amaze me with your knowlege and your heart.

TC

[ronleslie]

15. The Free Trade Genie

Regardless what one may think about free trade, and how you
define it, it would be impossible to turn the clock back and
protectionism is definitely not a good idea.   What none of
the candidates, or the party, or even economists are doing is
coming up with economic models for this new world so that
rational decisions can be made about how best to secure and
create good, well-paying jobs for U.S. workers.   So at this
point, no one really has much of a clue as to what types of
measures to take.

Certainly one thing that the US and the rest of the
industrialized world must do is end their enormous subsidies
of farm products, which drive down world prices artificially
and make it impossible for farmers in 3rd world countries to
compete in the one area where they could do so, were it not
for the subsidies.   But the US and the EU just refuse.   If
you think the farmer lobby is strong in the US, you wouldn't
believe how powerful it is in the EU.  But this has to happen.
  In the new global economy and world we are all truly
interconnected.   If we do not allow the 3rd world countries
to start building viable local economies, then we will
continue to have an unstable world filled with poverty, which
is against our national interests and security.

[AX10]

16. "Free Trade" only benefits the wealthiest and most powerful.

First our factory jobs were oursourced, now our white collar jobs are going the same way too. People need work!

[AdHocSolver]

19. "Free trade" does not exist. It is all spin.

Free trade assumes "free markets". Free markets assumes competition in which there exist numerous sellers and buyers, no one of which controls the quantity or price of a product for sale. It also assumes that there is free entry into the market by any buyers or sellers.

None of these conditions exists. Every market is controlled by the multinationals, the WTO, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), NAFTA, etc. By definition "free trade" does not, and cannot, exist.

There is an economic theory that "free trade" would maximize value by allowing each country to produce those goods that it could produce most efficiently and at least cost, and trade those goods with other countries for the goods that they produced most efficiently. When you have concentration of production and financial markets in the hands of a few monopolies colluding with each other about who produces what and how much and for what prices, there is NO "free trade".

Supposedly, governments would set regulations and tariffs about trade that would ensure that the "rules" to permit "free trade" to exist would be followed. However, many governments, including our own, have become merely hand-maidens to the multinational corporations.

What is needed is rules to ensure "fair trade" that some other posters have referred to. Rules to ensure product quality and safety, consideration for environmental issues, worker safety and treatment, and tariff and tax laws to protect local businesses. Yes, protect local business, not to ensure enormous profits as is currently done, but to protect local businesses from unfair predatory practices from foreign companies.

[TheFarseer]

20. In order for free trade to be fair and equal

the two countries trading need to be similar in standard of living. If the countries are not similar in standard of living, outsourcing etc etc will eventually work to make them equal. This is bad for us, whose standard of living is very high right now. We will sink and China will rise until we are equal in environmental protections, wages, healthcare costs and so on, until there is no point to outsourcing, because it won't save the corporations any money. The solution to this is to trade only with countries that have similar standards of living such as Canada, Australia, France, UK, Japan. The more you trade with a country, the more your country looks like theirs. We do not want to look like Mexico or China.

[AdHocSolver]

22. If you only allowed trade with countries having the same standard of living, we wouldn't get...

chocolate, bananas, pineapples, coffee, dates, figs, etc. There are ways to level the playing field in trade, but just prohibiting trade with certain countries won't work.

First, true "wealth" is created only by manufacturing. Raw materials are turned into useful objects by labor and traded for other useful articles made by someone else. Everyone benefits. A person's extra production, the extra goods he produces, but cannot use himself, is converted to other goods that he can't produce himself. Money, in and of itself, is not wealth.

What a country needs to do is level the playing field so that local workers aren't at a disadvantage as to cost. The way to do that is by, in some way, restricting imports that put local labor at a disadvantage. If you limit banana imports, and your country doesn't even grow bananas, that doesn't accomplish anything, and in fact it is dumb. One common way to protect local producers is through, "shudder", import tariffs. A tax is placed on goods to bring their prices in line with local production costs. You don't stop imports, as with import quotas, you merely level the playing field. Such import tariffs, judiciously applied, are probably the fairest way to go. Tariffs are only applied to goods that can be produced locally. You provide a disincentive to import, rather than producing locally, but prevent dumping. There is also an incentive to bring foreign worker pay on a par with local pay as the tariff is reduced as foreign costs increase. Such tariffs have to be carefully applied and constantly reviewed. However, the WTO, IMF, WorldBank, NAFTA signers do that sort of thing constantly to screw the public. Why not do the same kind of activity to protect the public?

[Like It Is]

24. We have nearly 20 years of Bush, Clinton, Bush to blame for the Free Trade Mess !

That's why I can't believe that people would even think of electing another Clinton. Ross Perot told us what NAFTA would bring. That giant sucking sound of jobs heading across the border. And as bad as Reagan was at least he put a quota on Japanese autos. But not Bush, Clinton, Bush!

[Norrin Radd]

23. k