Do you support free trade? Why or why not?

[DFLer4edu]

Do you support free trade? Why or why not?

On edit: Do you support capitalism? If not what other system do you propose?

[LincolnMcGrath]

1. No

Nothing is "free" in this world.

[ugarte]

23. "Free" trade is imperialism by another name

Instead of colonial armies, multinational corporations plunder the resources of small countries without firing a shot.

[awoke_in_2003]

28. NO

because it comes down to one thing, who benefits. If I make a part that costs $1 to make in the US, but 10 cents to make in China, where will I make it? In China, of course. Slave labour be damned. So, I start making my parts in China, which means americans lose their jobs. But, that's OK, I am still making a profit. The problem is, we find this OTHER part is made more cheaply in China, and this part, too (and so on, and so on). Pretty soon, everything is made in China (think Walmart). All good manufacturing jobs are gone, because we are a SERIVICES based economy. Now, China has us over 2 barrels: they own a BIG part of our debt, and own most of our industrial base. When the shit hits the fan (when they call in their debt), how will we respond? Could we, at this time, turn our industry back to the conditions during WWII (when everything was put into the war effort). HELL NO, we have no industrial base any longer. For a country to be legitimate, it MUST be able to produce.

[Flabbergasted]

2. Free trade or WTO stuff?

[DFLer4edu]

I mean the general idea

I do not mean every single move by the WTO, the details of every trade deal ever made by the US. I mean the general ideas that liberal thinking free traders would tout.

[Flabbergasted]

14. I support free trade because...

I think nationalism is an relic. I also don't believe in patriotism. Ultimately we should honor our neighbors next door and in china.

Some day we won't have borders and if I want to trade my corn for mexico's tortilla chips why not. But free trade like NAFTA and CAFTA is fake free trade. It takes all the power from the people and puts it into the hands of corporations impoverishing the people.

[DainBramaged]

21. The free trade we experience is one way, in not out,

except for our jobs, both manufacturing and middle class staples like research and accounting. Even the lowest common denominator such as call center jobs are gone out to our competitors in the name of cheap not quality. I'm tired of the cheapest price argument. At what point do we stop being a disposable society to preserve the middle class?

Fuck free trade and fuck honoring "our" neighbors. Equal value sent for value purchased.

[Flabbergasted]

24. I don't believe in cheapest price is the best either

Its an obvious falacy anyway. Just as its not in a company's best interest to suck up the profits and screw the workers it is not in our interest to buy from walmart.

What your talking about is WTO shit which I'm also against. Free Trade is different. In addition its not going to create a massive import export market. In the long run it will reduce the market because there is no incentive to produce across the border because its not cheaper to produce there.

If we had free trade with Mexico, real Free Trade we would no longer have an immigration problem. The currencies would ultimately level out the playing field. If you want to look at in another way how does illegal immigration hurt our economy and your access to a descent paying job?

[DainBramaged]

27. Immigration and free trade also depends on government's

responsibilities to it's citizens and to the efforts made to provide them with a job and infrastructure. Mexico has done neither for generations. Free trade will not solve the problem only encourage it since corporate crooks would hire a Mexican worker whose loyalty lies in Mexico not here and who would not keep what they earned here but send it home. Mexico has ridden on America's back for decades because WE promise equality, education, health care and opportunity. Mexico provides only to it's most elite what our middle class enjoys.

How well we promise is what encourges them to come here. When their government make living in Mexico safe and economically feasable (for two way immigration) only then can free trade be successful.

[newspeak]

30. what you fail to realize

that with your so-called "free trade" safety regulations may be laxed or rescinded. I want to know where my food comes from and how they grow it. When you talk about NAFTA-GATT, to me the worst trade agreement ever made, your talking about taking the decision of the people from a community and giving it to a corporation, especially from another country. There have been several lawsuits since NAFTA, the one in California involved a Canadian corporation poisoning California drinking water with Benzene. The company sued the US under the trade agreement and won--even though they were poisoning American citizens, they won!!!! American taxpayers had to foot the bill. So, against the will of the people, in a community or state, any old corporation from Canada, Mexico, wherever; can come in and pollute our water, shaft customers and get away with it. As a matter of fact, if I was a greedy, sociopathic corporation I'd want to come into the country and do just that, then go and sue and make lots of money!!!!! The other law suit was a funeral home business. When a corporation has more power than the will of the people, it is WRONG!!! WTO is the same way--here you have a bunch of rich white guys economically planning what they're going to do--we don't get to vote, we have no say---talk to me about democracy---who is making all of the decisions? especially economic decisions that will affect our lives and our children's lives.

[Flabbergasted]

82. You're taking my statement out of context

You can have safety regualtions. Like I said Nationalism is a relic which is dying.

There is little difference between trading Oregons corn for Florida's Corn Chips and trading Oregon's Corn for Mexico's Corn Chips if all the laws were uniform into terms of food quality and labor laws. WTO laws hurt labor. Free Trade can and will ultimately help labor.

[BurtWorm]

42. What general ideas would liberal thinking free traders tout?

"Free trade" between the US and other countries almost always means the other countries have to create class systems with wealth concentrated at the very top and the government has to relinquish certain protections against market dysfunctions, no matter which party is in power in the US. Is there a way to spin this sort of anti-democratic economics to make it seem "liberal" or "left?"

[Flabbergasted]

84. One of the double standards you end up with is...

Part of the left seems to be saying we want fair labor standards for our neighbors but don't bring these people over here and don't mess with my labor market. Its a double standard to say hey screw Mexico I just want good labor laws here.

Like I said Nationalism is a relic. Its dying. We need to start looking beyond our own borders because the future has come. Most people are not even aware of how entrenched the idea of globalization is in our global structure of operation even though any major college has majors in this field.

Hierarchical systems are an innate property of human consciouness. You find hierarchy in some form from ancient to modern society. How are you going to get rid of class systems?

Monetary systems only work when you have concentrations of wealth in a minority. This obviously creates some problems. Democracratic governance issupposed to fix these problems but not without the aid of an open media, fair elections, and a critical public all of which are absent right now in America because we are heading for globalization.

[rman]

64. The general idea of WTO/IMF-style free trade = exploitation

of poor countries by the western countries.

No wonder you do not want to go into "the details of every trade deal".

But really, what in your opinion is the general idea of 'liberal thinking' free trade?

[murdoch]

90. Right - the so-called free traders aren't even free traders

Free trade means one thing - when a commodity comes into the country, it is not hit by a tariff. But what they are calling free trade deals have nothing to do with this. Saying the "Central American Free Trade Act" (CAFTA) has anything to do with free trade is like saying the PATRIOT act has something to do with patriotism. When people talk about free trade deals it usually has little to nothing to do with free trade.

Beyond that, whether free trade is good or bad depends on circumstance. For developing countries, it's usually a good idea to have some kind of agricultural tariff, as well as tariffs to protect developing industries. Once the industries are mature the tariff can go away.

[K-W]

91. Free trade means US corporations are free to do what they want. EOM

[Atman]

3. Ain't no free.

If it "free trade" for the corporatists, it's gonna cost US a fortune. Nothing is free.

[niyad]

4. absolutely not. try reading greg palast's book "the best democracy

money can buy" and starhawk's book "earth path" for the reasons why.

[LincolnMcGrath]

6. Greg's book gave me my first ulcer!

[bemildred]

5. I support vibrant local economies.

"Free trade" is bullshit. I mean trade is good, trade is excellent, but not at the expense of the well-being of workers, the people that produce the wealth of nations.

[Tom Joad]

7. I support liberated workers, not liberated capital.

[jpgray]

8. In its current form, I don't

Because it resembles a macrocosm of a feudal estate. You have concentrated wealth and high standards of living for a small percentage, which exists only through the continued control and exploitation of the rest. It's true that with time the "rest" will see that wealth become more diffuse and will start seeing benefits from it, but in my view there are better ways to achieve that--for one by deciding upon and enforcing universal labor and environmental standards. Otherwise "free trade" is often an invitation for wealth-holding nations to maintain the egregious conditions that make outsourcing and offshore incorporating so profitable to begin with. Again, inevitably those conditions will change as wealth is poured into these poorer countries, but again I think there are better ways to regulate this process than saying "do whatever you want."

[proud patriot]

9. I support fair trade

I believe that "free trade" is a nice way to say
force labor prices down and create a global elite
and a global poor effectively decimating the middle
class throughout the world .

[noamnety]

25. Yep, Fair Trade

You stole the words right out of my mouth.

[NI4NI]

26. I'm with you, Fair Trade!

but that word can't be found in any corporate capitalist's dictionary or train of thought.

[AgadorSparticus]

32. absolutely!!! best answer! there is no free in free trade.

[Spazito]

46. Ditto, I support fair trade, trade that is a win/win for both the

industrialized nations and the poor in third world countries. The so called 'free trade' currently in existence is, in reality, corporate rape, imo.

[mtnester]

92. Exactly, Fair Trade is what is on the coffee I buy, and anything else

I can get my hands on. I am not educated enough on this issue, but I believe I am correct that fair trade is good, free not so.

[sweetm2475]

10. NO

In theory, free trade sounds good, helps bring the poor in other countries up, but in reality, it gives the control of the world to a few multinational corporations. And that doesn't benefit anybody.

[brokensymmetry]

11. No. I oppose it absolutely.

Free trade has very nearly destroyed the American middle and working classes.

The gains of decades - group health insurance, pensions, living wages, and even Social Security - are all being lost in a vast race to the bottom. American workers are being forced to compete with prison-camp labor in China, while CEOs are getting incomes of tens of millions of dollars. Plus bonuses.

No, I am against it.

[joefree1]

12. I worked in India where the import tax is 67%

We couldn't import anything because the client wouldn't pay all the taxes plus the usual bribes. However we could export to the USA where the import tax is about 10%. How is this free trade?

I've never gotten a good explanation for this.

[DFLer4edu]

15. That isn't free trade

[Selatius]

22. That's called being fucked over by corrupt trade policy

The only question is who is benefitting from an obviously rigged game.

[Clara T]

13. "Investors Rights"

is what it truly means. It's the slogan of imperial monopolists and protectionists...for export only.

Can't support that.

[Charlie Brown]

16. No

"Free trade" has been a disaster to the developing world, as well as well as to our own work force and industries.

Any similarity the current corporate slave-trade has to the "classical liberal" idea of a level playing-field is purely coincidental.

[tuvor]

17. Pragmatically speaking, how can one tell?

BOTH sides have to honour the agreement.

U.S. softwood producers to appeal latest ruling

The long-running dispute between Canadian and American softwood lumber producers took another twist Tuesday morning when U.S. producers said they were heading back to court to appeal Canada's latest trade victory.

The decision by the U.S. Lumber Coalition dashed Canada's hopes for an early settlement of a fight that has gone on for years, costing Canada thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic damage.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/12/20/softwood-051220.html

:mad:

[depakid]

18. Free trade is a misnomer of the worst sort

It makes no one free (in fact- it enslaves many) it degrades the environment, decisions are made with no transparency and it increases everyone's reliance on petroleum products while at the same time devastating communities, family farms and our manufacturing base.

In short, globalization may be the single stupidest set of policy decisions made in the past several decades.

[leftofthedial]

19. no. there is no such thing

"free trade" would imply that governments stop acting coercively and allow trade to take place free of constraint, the idea being that the market is just and that only goverments (through regulation, tariffs and other intrusions) are coercive

this is a red herring at best and an outright lie at worst. the most coercive force in markets is capitalism. Money talks.

"Free market" is a phantom. A lie created by corporatists to allow them to define it at any given moment in whatever way serves their immediate interest.

This behaves almost exactly like the "war on terror" or "al Qaeda" does for the neocons in the bushgang. They can use it as a sleight-of-hand distraction for their loyal base, to keep people from noticing the horrific crimes and injustices they wreak.

[Cats Against Frist]

31. I disagree

The government is integral to the plot. The corporatists had to first buy the government, to make sure that laws don't get passed that disrupt their plans. A corpo-fascist government is integral to these people's kind of "free market."

The government exists to protect wealth, as much as anything else. The corporations, in late-stage capitalism, need the military to back up their wealth protectionism and plunder. Who is it that arrests the WTO protesters? THE POLICE. THE GOV-ERN-MENT.

The free market, and the fair market, separated from state power, has a much better chance, than with state and corporation, combined. At least when you're dealing with a corporation, you can choose to buy their product or not. When you're dealing with a corpo-fascist government, you are beholden to subsidize them, and their plunder, with your tax dollars.

Why don't people see this?

[madeline_con]

20. It depends on what's being traded, and who's trading. eom

[newspeak]

29. I support Fair Trade

First, I want to protect my community, my country-that means livable wages, clean environment and safe work conditions. Barbaric capitalism is not good for the people in my community--only shareholders. What good is a corporation or business if it does not add value to a community? There are conscientious businesses, but the ones who really do the raping and pillaging add nothing, nothing to humanity, only to a few greedy individual's wallet. a corporation who's objective is solely growth while damaging people's lives, community, country; is like a cancer cell. However, I do buy foreign made products, but try to buy from companies who have some business ethics. You can look into the "Green Pages" and find a list of companies that treat their employees fair and are concerned about their community and environment. Also, buying locally as much as possible helps the people in your community.

[Solon]

33. Free Trade is as much a misnomer as Free Markets...

Neither really work in the real world, so neither should be present in pure forms either. What we have is Corporate Cronyism, which is perfectly acceptable in the United States, at least that is what the CEOs say. However, their attempt at exporting it through extortion is unacceptable. Now we are seeing a commodification of the commons, namely water, but also old vanguards like utilities as well. This is leading to a backlash, which seems to be concentrating in South America, and may trend northwards, as we can see with the elections of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Michelle Bachelet of Chile. This can be seen as a positive development with the idea that not only are these leaders actually popularly supported, but that their supporters themselves feel empowered to be able to make worldwide changes.

[DFLer4edu]

38. A thumbs down for Chavez

Popularly support doesn't make Chavez a good leader. Gay marriage and pot are not popularly supported, but that won't stop anyone at the DU from trying to make pot legal or make gay marriage what it is, a right. On the leadership side of popular Bush was hugely popular after 9/11, I trust you to remember everything he has screwed up thereafter. But the real poster boy for majority rule gone wrong due to no minority rights is Adolf Hitler, who was ELECTED chancellor of Germany in 1932. That didn't work out so well either. With everyone on the DU raving about Chavez it makes me wonder if anyone at the DU knows anything about him. Chavez was a colonel in the army, his first try at becoming president was not democratic, but a failed coup d'etat in 1992. He is a caudillo. Chavez lecturing Bush on the use of military force is like Bush lecturing the world on human rights. After he was elected in 1998 with popular support he held a referendum to eliminate the old Venezuelan constitution. The measure past overwhelmingly, but among other things stripped the legislature and judiciary of nearly all their power, dramatically reduced civilian control over the military and gave the new "Constituent Assembly" the power to fire judges. What is important in a democracy is not that the majority rules, but that minority rights are respected and that there is a rule of law which protects the minority. Chavez has gained popularity in Venezuela because he projects an image of "the protector" of Venezuela against the world (which more often than not means the US). The rhetoric may play well, but he will bring neither greater liberty nor economic prosperity to his people.

[Solon]

48. You forgot to mention the Term Limits introduced, or the power...

of Recall by referenda. Besides which, it wasn't Chavez who wrote the damned thing, it was a committee of appointees, then it was voted on in a referendum, something we in the United States don't have power over when it comes to Federal Constitutional Amendments here. Have you even read the Constitution of Venezuela, the 2000 edition that is? Not to mention that while you absolutely love to mention the failed 1992 coup, you fail to mention that the president of the time, Perez, was then impeached and removed from office for abuse of power. Not to mention that Carlos Andres Perez reneged on campaign promises and sold out his country and state oil company to neo-liberal interests. That angered many, and his successor pardoned Chavez for the coup.

Also, you want to talk about minority rights but forget what is laid out in the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic itself. Here's some info for you about Venezuela and Hugo Chavez:

10 Myths and Realities

6-Apr-05 Press Release by the Quebec coalition Venezuela nous sommes avec toi, section “Ten Myths and Realities
about President Hugo Chavez and the Venezuelan government”

1. MYTH: Hugo Chavez is a dictator

REALITY: Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998 with 56 % of the vote. After a new constitution was ratified by
popular vote (80%), he voluntarily put himself up for election again in 2001. He won this election with 59 % of the vote. In
2004 he was subject to a recall referendum, a process that did not previously exist in Venezuela but that he had added to
the constitution. He won this referendum with nearly 60% of the vote. The election was overseen by several international
organizations, including the Carter Center, all of which declared the elections free and fair.

2. MYTH: Chavez is destabilizing South America and the Caribbean.

REALITY: Venezuela has joined in many cooperative relationships in South America and the Caribbean. Following the
examples of nineteenth-century Latin American liberators Simón Bolívar and José Martí, Chavez has promoted an all-
inclusive Latin American “great homeland” (“patria grande”). A few examples of this include Venezuela’s incorporation into
Merco Sur; assistance in the creation of a South American television station TeleSur and oil enterprise PetroSur; and the
building of a pipeline with Colombia, whose narco-traffickers, paramilitaries, and leftist guerrillas it seeks to prevent from
crossing the border into Venezuela.
Petrocaribe is a new Venezuelan proposal through which 14 Caribbean counties will receive oil at preferential prices, and
currently Venezuela has an oil-for-food accord with Argentina.

3. MYTH: Chavez supports narco-trafficking.

REALITY: The US Congressional Research Service Report for Congress states: “Despite friction in US-Venezuelan
relations, cooperation between the two countries at the law enforcement agency level continues to be excellent, according
to the State Department’s 2003 International narcotics Control Strategy Report.”

4. MYTH: Chavez is repressing the media.

REALITY: Venezuela’s privately owned TV stations blatantly and admittedly participated in the 2002 coup attempt
against Chavez (see Council on Hemispheric Affairs, “Investigation Memorandum. The Venezuelan Media: More Than
Words in Play," Press Memorandum 03.18, April 30, 2003). Yet not one of the stations has been closed, and none of the
station owners has been arrested on charges of conspiracy. Under Chavez, several new community TV channels have
sprung up, hundreds of new “pirate” radio stations have raised antennas in every corner of the country, and hundreds of
community newsletters are being printed. Even independent websites have gone up, including www.el23.net. The Chavez
government is helping to jumpstart the continental TV station TeleSur (TeleSud in Brazil) in hopes of breaking the
monopoly of CNN and its disinformation reaching hundreds of millions in Spanish and Portuguese. Venezuela’s new Law
of Social Responsibility of Radio and TV attempts to regulate the media in the same way that the FCC in the US does. It
restricts violent content during high children viewing hours and it also establishes avenues for libel suits to combat
slander. The new law, just as in the United States and other countries, makes threatening the President’s life or promoting
actions that threaten national security a crime.

5. MYTH: Chavez is propping up the Cuban economy and government.

REALITY: First, the Cuban economy relies mostly on tourism and is not in need of “propping up” despite nearly half a
century of US economic blockade. Second, Cuba and Venezuela have entered in to various agreements, including ALBA
(Bolivarian Alternative to the FTAA, based on reducing poverty rather than raising profits) and the Caracas Accord
through which 23 Latin American countries receive preferential oil prices. For Cuba’s part, it has been the key player in
Venezuela’s two most successful social programs: Barrio Adentro (BA) and Mission Robinson (MR). Tens of thousands of
Cuban doctors are serving in community medical clinics throughout the country (BA). The MR literacy campaign used the
U.N.-lauded Cuban program “Yo Sí Puedo,” as Cuba trained Venezuelan teachers and provided televisions, VCR’s,
workbooks, pencils and even personal library sets to all those attaining a 6th-grade reading level. In the first year of MR
more than a million Venezuelans became literate. Cuba also has sent thousands of sports instructors to Venezuela and
has treated many Venezuelans with special medical needs in hospitals in Cuba. The US is increasingly isolated in its
condemnation of Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution.

6. Myth: Chavez is a communist and is centralizing power.

Reality: According to the Webster dictionary Chavez falls into the category of a populist: “ a believer of the rights, wisdom, or
virtues of the common people”. Contrary to communist theory, the Chavez government has handed out millions of private
land ownership titles. And instead of taking over the means of production, the government has begun entering into co-
management relationships with workers who have taken over control of their factories. The current program of developing
endogenous development communities that are self sufficient and locally governed are a profound expression of true
decentralization of power to the local level.

7. MYTH: Chavez is building up a dangerous arsenal.

REALITY: Venezuela, like any other country, maintains a means of defending itself. Keep in mind that Venezuela in 2002
underwent a short-lived coup that was backed by a foreign aggressor and shares a 1400-mile border with a country in the
midst of a 50-year-old civil war that is the Western Hemisphere’s headquarters of the cocaine trade and largest recipient
of modern US military equipment. The Venezuelan military consists of 80,000 soldiers (in contrast with Colombia’s
450,000). Soldiers carry obsolete rifles. Venezuela has purchased 100,000 less obsolete (1947 design) assault rifles from
Russia and plans to buy 40 helicopters to patrol the Colombian border. Venezuela is also negotiating the purchase of
coast guard patrol boats from Spain to combat the drug trade and a fleet of aircraft from Brazil to replace its U.S.-built F-
16’s for which the US will not sell Venezuela repair parts. Unlike the United States and its countless targets, Venezuela
has never been accused of developing or possessing any non-conventional weapons or “weapons of mass destruction.”

8. MYTH: Chavez is going to cut off oil sales to the US.

REALITY: Venezuela has recently made many mutually beneficial oil agreements (and other trade agreements) with not
only the US but also other huge oil consuming countries such as India and China. These latter deals, once fully
implemented, will lower Venezuela’s dependence on the US as its main purchaser of oil. This does not mean that oil
supplies to the US would be diverted to China and India, but instead Venezuela hopes to increase its market. However,
this lower dependence on the US will give Venezuela, and by “Bolivarian” definition, all of Latin America, some breathing
room and unprecedented bargaining power against US hegemony. This is the crux of US hostility toward Chavez.

9. MYTH: Chavez is friendly with terrorist nations

REALITY: The Chavez government has friendly relations with just about every nation in the world. Venezuela’s
relationships with Middle Eastern governments that do not have good relations with the US, such as Iraq, Iran and Libya,
stem from their common membership in OPEC, which was created in 1960. And while Venezuela does not maintain close
ties to terrorist nations such as Israel, some are legitimately concerned about its economic friendship with the US.

10. MYTH: Chavez government is violating human rights.

REALITY: In fact, the Chavez government is the first government in over a hundred years in Venezuela that has
addressed human rights in any meaningful way. The Chavez administration’s central tenet is the guaranteeing of basic
human rights to the entire population. This, so far, has come in the form of universal health care, education, land
distribution, subsidized food, and a participatory democracy. The Bolivarian constitution is the first in the world to
recognize the rights of children to a healthy and happy life. It gives unprecedented rights and sovereignty to indigenous
peoples and recognizes housework as a value-added commodity that assures women a pension for a life of housework.
The signers of the 2002 coup decree that made Pedro Carmona dictator for a day and dissolved the national assembly,
nullified the constitution and dismissed the Supreme Court have still not been brought to trial, although some of them are
under investigation and possible charges may be brought eventually. Can you imagine participants of a coup attempt
against George W. Bush living free three years later (or living at all for that matter)?

PREPARED BY Dawn Gable and edited by Dr. J. Cockcroft

[K-W]

49. Its a good thing we idiots at DU have someone to tell us Chavez is bad.

Popularly support doesn't make Chavez a good leader.

I'm sure the people of Venezuala would be happy to know you think they are incompetent.

Gay marriage and pot are not popularly supported, but that won't stop anyone at the DU from trying to make pot legal or make gay marriage what it is, a right.

Nobody has argued that popular support is neccessary for something to be good or right. People mention that Hugo Chavez is elected and supported because it legitimizes him as a representative of the Venezualan people. This lies contrary to the claims from the right that Chavez is a dictator and a radical.

On the leadership side of popular Bush was hugely popular after 9/11, I trust you to remember everything he has screwed up thereafter.

That is a pretty rediculous comparison unless you can show a large terrorist attack in Venezuala before an approval poll.

But the real poster boy for majority rule gone wrong due to no minority rights is Adolf Hitler, who was ELECTED chancellor of Germany in 1932. That didn't work out so well either.

Bullshit. he was appointed by Hindenburg. Hitler never won a majority in an honest election. He maneuvered his way into power through backroom deals and criminality.

With everyone on the DU raving about Chavez it makes me wonder if anyone at the DU knows anything about him.

Perhaps if you had bothered to read the many many thread regarding Chavez and Venezuala on these forums you would see that we are quite well informed on the subject as we are about most of the subjects we discuss here on DU.

Chavez was a colonel in the army, his first try at becoming president was not democratic, but a failed coup d'etat in 1992. He is a caudillo.

No shit. What is your point? Were you a fan of the previous government?

Chavez lecturing Bush on the use of military force is like Bush lecturing the world on human rights.

Huh? Bush is a warmonger who has committed a vast array of war crimes including the crime of aggression and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands. Chavez tried to overthrow his own corrupt government.

After he was elected in 1998 with popular support he held a referendum to eliminate the old Venezuelan constitution. The measure past overwhelmingly,

Democracy at work.

but among other things stripped the legislature and judiciary of nearly all their power, dramatically reduced civilian control over the military and gave the new "Constituent Assembly" the power to fire judges.

Perhaps reforms were neccessary. The people of Venezuala get to choose thier form of government, not you, I or the President of the US no matter how incompetent you may think the Venezualan people are.

What is important in a democracy is not that the majority rules, but that minority rights are respected and that there is a rule of law which protects the minority.

What is important in a democracy is that the will of the people is expressed through the government. What is important in a free society is that individual rights are protected.

But you arent making a point, you are just defining terms. Are you suggesting that peoples rights are being trampled in Venezuala? Lets see some evidence.

Chavez has gained popularity in Venezuela because he projects an image of "the protector" of Venezuela against the world (which more often than not means the US).

What on earth does that mean? That is a really convoluted way of saying that Chavez got elected in part because he opposes the extremely unpopular influence of the US and other foriegn powers in Venezuala.

Im not sure if he is projecting any images, but I'm pretty sure he is persuing policies that reduce the influence of foriegn governments and institutions on Venezuala. Is that a bad thing?

The rhetoric may play well, but he will bring neither greater liberty nor economic prosperity to his people.

Did you get stuck in a time warp? Why are you talking in the future tense. Chavez is in power now and has been for some time and he has retained his popularity because he has done exactly what you think he wont do.

[rman]

61. Chavez is bringing economic prosperity to his people

and he certainly has brought liberty from exploitation by a wealthy few, to the Venezuelan people.

Most here know most of the facts about Chavez that you mention - it's just that most here don't share your conclusions, which frankly do sound a lot like RW rhetoric.

It's interesting that you do not mention the coup against Chavez in 2002, where during the preceding clash between Chavez supporters and opposition supporters several Chavez supporters were killed by sniper fire.
see "The revolution will not be televised" www.chavezthefilm.com

[K-W]

34. What on earth is free trade?

I don't support forcing and coercing other nations to subordinate thier economies to the control of US Bankers and investors?

Do I support freedom in general and hypothetically in trade, of course. But what on earth does that have to do with anything that happens on planet earth?

As far as supporting capitalism, of course I don't support capitalism. Why would anyone other than a capitalist support a system in which the entitled owners of property control the economic functioning and development of society?

As far as proposing another system, I propose democracy through a participitory government based on genuine representation and personal liberty.

[DFLer4edu]

39. That isn't an economic system

"democracy through a participatory government based on genuine representation and personal liberty." is a political system, not an economic one. Unless you propose that such a democracy decide who gets what.

[K-W]

47. No it is a system of government, it is how the economy should be governed.

The issue isnt the plan (Capitalism isnt a plan either). The issue is who makes the plans, who makes the decisions, and who controls the economy that we all rely on for survival.

Democracy doesnt tell us how to run our economy anymore than it explains how to run a police force, what it tells us is that whatever plans are enacted and whatever institutions created must derive their legitimacy from the uncoerced will and consent of the people.

On the other hand Capitalism doesnt tell us how to run our economy either, it just tells us that our economy should be owned and operated by an entitled minority. It is this minority, the capitalists, who make the actual plans.

[mattclearing]

50. While that may be true at the moment, that is not necessarily the

nature of capitalism. The entitled minority may make the plans, but the economic power in the world is still held by the people who buy things, though they may not realize it. If people stopped buying gas tomorrow, you can bet that entitled minority you speak of would be singing a new tune. They can't do anything without a consumer base.

[K-W]

56. That is exactly the nature of capitalism.

Capitalism exists when productive property is owned by an entitled minority who reap profits and control development through investment.

There is some power involved in the consumer economy, but even in that portion of the economy the lions share of the power belongs to the owners and investors.

In the overall economy your power is directly proportional to your wealth. That is capitalism, a regime of wealth.

If people stopped buying gas tommarow some members of the entitled minority would become less entitled whilest others became more entitled selling bicycles.

They can do almost anything they want with a consumer base. Consumers are passive, they choose from what they are offered.

[eridani]

35. Nope. In the 19th C, we had massive protection--

--that's how we mananged to develop. Plus we stole a lot of European "intellectual property." That's how S. Korea, Japan and Taiwan managed to develop also.

[K-W]

36. How radical, a society protecting the economic security of its people.

You crazy 'protectionist.'

[BL611]

52. Protectionism worked for us because we

had many resources (human, natural, geographical) that many third world countries don't have. I'm not saying that certain protectionist measures wouldn't be constructive for say, African nations, but the whole we did it this way, so can they argument doesn't hold up...

[K-W]

57. Actually these nations have plenty of resources,

that is why we want to control them.

All protectionism means is that the government manages the nations economic relations in the best interests of its people.

[BL611]

59. All the time

These nations DO NOT have plenty of resources, their main resource is plenty of cheap low skill labor, but these nations do not have the capital to use this resource, and so they need at least SOME foreign investment (not to mention technical knowhow) to help grow the economy and erode poverty. Protectionism means that the government closes its borders to foreign products and investment, in some instances that is in the peoples best interests, in other instances, it's not.

[K-W]

63. Some nations have resources, some don't

the ones the US invests in tend to have resources, but in some cases the investment is simply for cheap labor, although in those cases there is very little investment in anything but the production processes.

Some nations need foreign investment because of how the global economy is structured. It isn't an inherent need of a developing nation.

Protectionism means that the government closes its borders to foreign products and investment, in some instances that is in the peoples best interests, in other instances, it's not.

No, it doesn't mean that. That is an absurd definition. Protectionism does not mean the irrational shunning of all trade, it means taking steps to protect the domestic economy from the effects of such trade, which may sometimes mean blocking it entirely.

It sounds to me like you are thinking of isolationism. Which is a bird of a different feather.

[rman]

67. Now it's third world countries that need protection from exploitation

by the US and western nations in general.

If a country is poor and defenseless, even if it has nothing to offer except cheap labor - then it will be exploited.

[K-W]

68. Without protectionism we would still be in a colonial relationship

with europe. They would be exploiting our labor and our resources would have built up thier states.

[rman]

71. The US was/is strong enough to protect itself,

most developing nations are not.

[Dongfang Hong]

77. And is China in a colonial relationship with us?

Because China has been extremely open to foreign "exploitation," and if China is in a colonial relationship with us, I'm not sure who the colony is.

[K-W]

81. You cant really compare the two,

but no, not really. China is a fairly strong nation. I dont know what 'extremely open' means but China has retained a great deal of control over its economy and resources and is attempting to retain its status as a power whilest integrating itself into the global economy. The US and other powers will attempt to exploit it and subjegate it as much as possible in the process

[Dongfang Hong]

94. China may now be a fairly strong nation,

but even when it opened itself up under Deng Xiaoping it was an economic runt. It controls its internal economy well, but you'd be surprised how open transnational corporations are to do business in China. And that "integration into the global economy" you speak of, in this case, is by and large free trade.

And I don't think we'll be doing much exploitation of the Chinese. In a nation with unemployment ranging as high as 25% in areas, people welcome any jobs they can get. I split my time between Beijing and Chicago. In China--especially the rural areas the TNCs are moving into--any jobs are appreciated. Rural areas have no schooling, no money, and no economies to speak of. Honestly, in some of the places I've been to, the only sign that I'm in 2000AD and not 1000AD is the rusty, bare basketball hoop bolted up on the occasional wall. The transnat factories and Chinese factories that exist on free trade may be unpleasant places, but they allow the local economies to develop. Shanghai and Beijing are gleaming modern cities now, and free trade is largely to be credited.

In fact, the Chinese government seems to want even freer trade. They just worry about doing it too quickly--nobody wants a Soviet Union-style collapse. And they want to do it without granting political freedoms.

Any exploitation of the people is usually done by the Chinese government itself--say, when they evict entire villages without compensation for their houses and farms to create 'special economic zones' for foreigners to build factories in.

Seriously, I doubt we could exploit China for long if we wanted to. What would we do to them? They already hold quite a bit of our debt--and they intend to hold more. They have more protectionist barriers up than we do. Their yuan is still undervalued, and they still engage in dumping. I'm not sure what "exploiting China" would entail, especially when the problem looks to be the opposite.

[K-W]

96. China's power is mostly potential,

which explains why it has taken this long for it to finally be able to demand seats at the table.

Free trade? What is free trade? Both the US and China have a complex set of trade agreements and regulations. Neither nation has left its economy bare, each protects key markets and key assets from the other and ensures that trade flows in particular ways.

We will be doing a great deal of exploitation of the Chinese exactly because thier unemployment is so low. They are a huge pool of extremeley cheap labor and they will be put to work at the lowest possible wages and they will exploited because they cannot demand more for themselves.

Yes, there is plenty of capital flowing into the pockets of the gatekeepers and owners in China, but none to the people. If the wealth flowed to the people they wouldnt have a 25% unemployment rate and they wouldnt work for peanuts and it wouldnt be profitable to invest in chinese labor anymore. Maybe then working Americans will have suffered enough to depress the wages here and we can have manufacturing jobs again.

The Chinese government wants exactly what the US government does, it wants money for the elites in society that pull its strings it may call this free trade like the US does, but there is nothing particularly free about it.

Of course the exploitation is done by the chinese government, they are getting a cut of the profits to be made in exploiting their own poor citizens.

As far as the US debt to China, if you really think the most powerful nation in the world signed a sucker deal with china, I have a bridge to sell you. China, as a prelude to allowing foriegn firms to extract profit from its resources has extended a generous line of credit to the United States which the United States has used largely to make rich richer boost corporations and engage in expansionist foriegn policy.

When its time to pay the loans it will provide a great execuse to wipe out any social programs that remain in the United States and place the debt on the backs of the US Middle and Working Classes. Meanwhile much of that money that goes back into the Chinese economy will come right back into US corporations who are invested in China.

[eridani]

88. It worked for Japan, S, Korea and Taiwan as well

They have no resources to speak of.

[Dongfang Hong]

76. And we developed over 150 years.

China has developed over 20, and Korea and Japan did over 30.

[eridani]

89. Korea and Japan were very protectionist--

--at least until they got competitive. As a result, their living standards are far superior to those of China. Until very recently, you couldn't even get Japanese comics in Korea, let alone cars.

[Floogeldy]

37. Where?

In the US? World wide? In your state?

[Armstead]

40. "Free Trade" is not free trade

Real free trade is allowing nations to determine their own trade policies to reflect the needs and priorities of their own populations. It would alo allow nations to negotiate between each other.

The so-called "fre trade" being pushed by the corporatists and neo-liberal elites is the opposite of that. It is an attempt to undermine the sovergnty of nations and civil government by imposing right-wing economics on any nation that wants to engage in international trade.

[IChing]

41. Read "THE CONFESSIONS OF A ECONOMIC HITMAN" and

then tell me what really is "free trade"
Definition of terms are ambiguous and incongruous in your original post.
"Capitalism", "free trade" and "other systems"

[DFLer4edu]

45. I was ambiguous for a reason

Everyone in this thread seems to have a different idea of what free trade or capitalism means, If I had defined capitalism, for instance, with a traditional definition every single post in this thread would be a comment on the definition, something along the line of that's not capitalism, capitalism is the system in which big corporations exploit and oppress the proletariat. And someone else would say, that isn't capitalism, capitalism is where the top income braket gets a huge tax cut while the rest of us get screwed. Anyway, you get the picture.

[rman]

69. Just look at the effects of so-called free trade

on developing nations: without exception the rules as set by the IMF and/or WTO result in the destruction of what was left of the local economy of these nations, to be replaced by large western corporations that suck the country dry.

Anyway, i don't think a constructive debate is possible as long as definitions are left to be ambiguous.

[tjwash]

43. You mean opening sweat shops in other countries...

...with brutal discipline, child labor, and no environmental restrictions, while essentially rewarding the mega-corps by removing any taxation and import-export tariffs associated with it? No I think I'm against it.

As for "capitalism" that died years ago. That word is now used by the corporate run media to keep the masses thinking they have a half a chance at getting anywhere in our plutocracy. Or, are things like the recent SBC-AT&T mega merger actually promoting the start up of any new telecomm businesses?

[oc2002]

44. No, it should be renamed Great Exploitations of poorer countries...

..where the trade is one way to the US consumers, who think they are getting a value are actualy the ultimate losers when jobs start exporting out to foreign countries. It only will expedite the flow of money to multi national corporations that will distroy the middle class here and destroy the family values that 'free trade' supporters think is so important.

[Dongfang Hong]

51. Um...

*walks in thread*
*looks at general consensus*
*quickly walks away, hoping nobody noticed*

[BL611]

53. Yes its pretty unfortunate

The lefts constant rush to throw out the baby with the bathwater is one of its most destructive aspects....

[K-W]

58. So economic injustice is the baby? EOM

[BL611]

60. Who said that?

[K-W]

65. So what is the baby that leftists are throwing out? EOM

[Dongfang Hong]

75. I believe

the baby is increased worldwide economic growth (for an example of beneficial aspects of free trade, see what happened to China after they lifted their Mao-era barriers), US long-term competitiveness, an increased rate of technological development, and increased employment in better-paying jobs as well as a development of infrastructure throughout developing countries.

The bathwater is inequality and appalling conditions during the first two generations and the exportation of uncompetitive American jobs traditionally performed by union labor.

[K-W]

80. And exactly who suggested throwing development out? EOM

[Dongfang Hong]

93. The theory is that

free trade actually leads to faster development of both third-world and first-world nations, as capital is then used in the most efficient manner for all involved.

[K-W]

95. That doesnt look like a very promising theory.

Free trade benefits the nation with the most competitive economy. Which should be fairly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of economics. Free trade means that the massive industrial high tech nation that generously subsidizes its agriculture is going to fairly quickly dominate the market of any undeveloped nation it is allowed to trade with and purchase any valuable assets and resources in the country to bring to the international market.

You then say that capital is used efficiently, but you do not say what it is used to do. Efficiency is not an end unto itself. Efficiency is fine and dandy, but shouldnt we first make sure our goals and actions are in order?

[bleedingheart]

54. Nothing in the world is Free - Everything has a Price...

"free trade" is a corporate PR spin job...

[porphyrian]

55. Free trade itself is not the problem.

Nor is capitalism. The problem with either practice comes when profit is put before humanity. While ethics seeks to keep this in check, it has been proven time and again that some profiteers will always act unethically if not properly and legally regulated, and often even then. Corporations are most often the worst offenders due to the same protections they afford honest businessmen. Corporations in most countries have the rights of individual citizens, but not the same accountability or responsibility.

[K-W]

66. But isnt it capitalism that dictates

that economic decisions be made by investors (the ones who are after the profit)?

If the problem is that profit is being put in front of people, how is capitalism not implicated?

[porphyrian]

74. Investors don't have to put profit before people.

And they can still make a profit doing so. Capitalism, again, doesn't have to be practiced without humanity. Capitalism is simply "an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market." This doesn't necessitate sociopathy and greed. A victim isn't required for making a profit. It's when people lose sight of this that damage is done. Victimization is what should be prevented, regulated and/or punished, and it should not be easier for a corporation to get away with doing so than for an individual. In this manner, the market itself remains free, but peoples' treatment of others is what's regulated, which is already the case in other aspects of our lives. I can't kill two thousand people a year unpunished, why should Ford or Union Carbide be allowed to?

[K-W]

79. Yes, people dont have to enrich themselves at the expense of others,

but if we let them, they will.

Could investors be benevolent, I suppose, so can Kings, the important thing is that they dont have to be.

[porphyrian]

85. No, but they needn't be malevolent, either.

I don't believe having a system where people enrich themselves at the expense of others causes people to do so, it merely attracts and enables those who would. And, with the proper regulations, laws, checks and balances, we should be able to prevent victimization.

Unlike what so many would have us believe, freedom is not paid for in advance. Freedom is its own price, and most are unwilling to pay it.

[K-W]

87. They need to persue profit or they wont be investors anymore.

They will be former investors.

[youngred]

62. I support Free Trade if....

it is fair trade for other nation's companies and involves worker protections for those nations workers. I support it if it is coupled with protection and job training for American workers who would lose their jobs.

[rman]

70. You ask for a definitive yes or no,

in response to your questions yet you are "purposefully" ambiguous about the definitions of "free trade" and "capitalism"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=37860&mesg_id=40339

What would be the point of that?

[GrantDem]

72. NO

I do not support free trade because it has resulted in a race to the bottom for the American worker. The American worker that sees their job shipped overseas in search of cheap labor. So called free trade is destroying the middle class, increasing our trade deficit, and driving down the value of the U.S. dollar.

[rman]

73. Must see for anyone curious about the effects of so-called"free trade"

The documentary "Life and Debt" is about the case of Jamaica, which befell victim early on in the game. But the general idea is true for all developing nations that are being "helped" by the IMF.
www.lifeanddebt.org

[DemGirl7]

78. I don't support Free trade

The problem with Free Trade, is that jobs are being sent overseas, by greedy businesses that don't want to pay for the cost that American workers need to live a decent life. With Free Trade, the businesses send the jobs to countries where they can exploit the cheap labor, and there are no regulations on how to get work done. I support capitalism, but in very regulated form.

[UDenver20]

83. Yes and Yes

Lexus and the Olive Tree - by Thomas Friedman.

[bearfan454]

86. Free trade means by by American jobs.

Look how well it has done so far.