Answer our poll question, then debate the topic below.
Tag(s): Economy , Polls Posted by Bill Moyers Journal on May 17, 2007 12:45 PM|Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/155
Comments
"Free Trade" allows capital to move to the least expensive workforce areas.
The only people who benefit from "Free Trade" are those who have always benefited from slavery. In the 21st Century the labor is not literally in chains, it is disposable.
I'LL TELL YOU WHAT FREE TRADE HAS DONE TO MY FAMILY. MY HUSNAMD IS NEARLY 64 YRS OLD AND HAS TO WORK TWO VWRY LOW PAYING JOBS JUST TO PAY THE RENT. I LOST MY JOB BECAUSE OF A COMPANY BUYOUT IN NOV., 07 BECAUSE MY NEW BOSS DIDN'T LIKE THAT I AM SEVERLEY HEARING IMPAIRED. NY UNEMPLOYMENT CHECK, $196/WK, IS DUE TO RUN OUT IN A FEW WEEKS. WE STILL HAVE THREE MINOR CHILDREN AT HOME. WHERE ARE THE SAFTEY NETS? HE MAKES 1,700/MONTH. WE ARE UNELIGABLE FOR HEALTH CARE {ALTHOUGH HE IS A VETERAN} OR FOOD STAMPS OR RENTAL ASSISTANCE. THAT'S WHAT FREE TRADE HAS DONE FOR THIS COUNTRY. 25 YRS AGO I MADE TRIPLE THAN WHAT I WAS MAKING IN MY LAST JOB.
The reason unemployment statistics do not reflect the reality around us is that 40% of our workforce (See report on PBS NOW about consultant's union) now consists of self-employed contractors and temporary positions. Some are ineligible and others find filing difficult. Having once been a government surveyor and statistician I do not doubt the numbers are manipulated. The benefit level is so low as to be laughable for many laid-off skilled and professional. They won't humiliate themselves by filing. It's like surrendering. Yes, and there are many whose benefits have run out after 26 weeks in a nation without a safety net. Also, the informal or underground economy my be as high as 20%, excluding the 10% who work primarily in fields considered criminal (drugs, prostitution, sports gambling, fraud). Drugs and illegal sex probably provide 25% of our true economic gross. People are eager to work. 25% over age 65 are employed in some manner, but maybe 30 million have dropped out of the workforce and are no longer looking. Some haven't the means to look. Education is then out of the question, and would not solve the problem anyway with the finite number of positions decreasing. Education is not...
The reason unemployment statistics do not reflect the reality around us is that 40% of our workforce (See report on PBS NOW about consultant's union) now consists of self-employed contractors and temporary positions. Some are ineligible and others find filing difficult. Having once been a government surveyor and statistician I do not doubt the numbers are manipulated. The benefit level is so low as to be laughable for many laid-off skilled and professional. They won't humiliate themselves by filing. It's like surrendering. Yes, and there are many whose benefits have run out after 26 weeks in a nation without a safety net. Also, the informal or underground economy my be as high as 20%, excluding the 10% who work primarily in fields considered criminal (drugs, prostitution, sports gambling, fraud). Drugs and illegal sex probably provide 25% of our true economic gross. People are eager to work. 25% over age 65 are employed in some manner, but maybe 30 million have dropped out of the workforce and are no longer looking. Some haven't the means to look. Education is then out of the question, and would not solve the problem anyway with the finite number of positions decreasing. Education is not...
I'm a high school math teacher so I know a little bit about what numbers can and cannot say. One thing that we're not told often is the number of people who have lost their jobs and are not longer eligible for unemployment. I'm not up-to-date on all of the rules, but I think a person can 'sign-up' for unemployment for six months. After that, they are no longer eligible for those benefits. So eventually, all of the people who have lost their jobs will rotate off of that list.
ps dear al, whatever you were reading that said unemployment low,economy great and future looks rosy
is pure propaganda based on nothing. As in the freetrade controversy, the facts belie statements by those pushing this down our
throats.
Just finished mcarthurs book EXCELLENT. I was surprised that after catching him on AMY that his book was written in 2000. It seems like two decades ago....Its been a long nasty road since the corrupt supreme court derailed our elections with
James bakers help. Where did I hear that story about baker botts...I think
it was an unfinished question on that redfreak connies booknotes. No matter how much she tried to cut off callers who wanted to discuss current reality with Harpers lewis lapham, callers all but one wanted a reality check on their disgust and fear of this fascist federalist conspiracy we have begun to see exposed. They are pedaling furiously to stay ahead of the surge of citizen revolt. of course
we wont get the investigations that impeachment trials would entail, the socalled opposition party has long been in collusion. Of cvourse, what wannabe writer
connie wanted to talk about was ,what do you wear when you write? Do you use a pencil or a computer? y'know, important stuff like that
I have been undecided about free trade until I read an article that stated that unemployment is exceptionally low, the economy is running great and the future looks rosy. Yes, some people have lost their jobs and to them free trade is awful; manufacturing has disolved since the free trade laws went into effect, but the service jobs have gone through the roof. For the past 40 years the advice has been to get a college education because that's the only way to succeed. It is even truer now. Those without a college degree will be left behind and the gap between the haves & have nots will get wider. That is terrible, but I'm not sure what can be done to alleviate the trend. It can only get worse. Read what Graeme Milligan wrote above because he made the most sense to me.
Have a nice day, Al
I'm opposed to free trade agreements as they currently exist, but I'd like to see Mr. MacArthur's evidence that the Democratic leadership are doing this solely to hustle Wall Street for cash. That seems a hell of an accusation, coming as it does without a shred of documentation. I guess I'll have to read the book.
I am from Australia and have just watched the segment with John R. MacArthur on Free Trade. I have recently completed a Masters thesis on a history of U.S. Trade Policy and Multilateralism since 1934. Its kind of a misnomer to say that the Democratic Party is the party of protectionist interests and the Republicans the party of free trade. Until the 1960s it was the Republicans who were generally the party of protectionism, much as you describe Buchanan's position. The free trade philosophy of people like Adam Smith is supposed to lift people out of poverty. Obviously things are much more complicated than Smith's philosophy. In trade agreements some people will win and some will lose, its a matter of equipping and compensating the losers to the degree to which they can find themselves in a position able to attain employment that at the least enables them to maintain the standard of living to which they are accustomed, which could happen if trade adjustment assistance was funded and targeted adequately.
Author and journalist, John R. MacArthur said, I realize that every time somebody says, "We're helping the poor" or "We're helping the foreigners" or "the poor foreigners," what they really mean is, "We're going to exploit the hell out of them. This is a way we're going to lock in cheap labor in any country you can think of and exploit them." And it's a union killing movement in the United States. You cannot form an union in the United States anymore without risking your plant being closed, sent overseas, or other kinds of intimidation. That's why union membership and private union membership has now fallen to eight percent of the workforce. As an American, as a citizen, I don't want to see the big money keep winning the way it's been winning over and over and over again. What is most telling about the Free Trade discussion and the American worker is the idea of exploitation, a concept that is all but disappeared for public discourse, in regards to foreign economic relationships and in the United States itself. What seems clear enough is the total abandonment of social conscious toward others whether in or outside of the U.S.. An...
The answer to multinational corporations exploiting foreign workers is an international minimum wage. Corporations should have to pay foreign workers no less than the minimum wage of the country of incorporation. This is the only moral and ethical thing to do which means it doesn't have a chance.
"Free trade" "agreements" (free for whom and who has agreed?) benefit American and global corporations at the expense of the Americamn worker and the workers abroad, along with complete disregard for the environment there as well. there are provisions written into WTO doctrine which specifically eliminate any protection of workers' rights, human rights, or environmental regulation. I hope Bill Moyers follows up on this story and gets Dennis Kucinich in on the discussion as he has stated time and time again that, as president, he will cancel our affiliation with the WTO, cancel NAFTA and CAFTA, and return to bilateral trade agreements based upon workers rights, human rights, and the environment. Kucinich has also challenged each of his fellow candidates to do the same yet not one has mustered up the courage and creativity to commit to this level of humanity.
As a "lunch pail liberal", ala Henry Jackson, HHH, ... I've been anti free-trade for > 15 years. Taking a page from the capitalist proponents, this should be easy to finance: If you're for free trade, check a box on your tax form. If you've suffered economic dislocation (euphemisms for "fired"), check another box.
Then, those people who check the "dislocation" box, shall have their loss of income, prorated to cost-of-living, made up by proportionate surtax on those advocates. This solution is either too simple or too populist. Free trade either sinks or swims based on the amount of real commitment ($$) people are willing to support it with.
I've been advocating this figure-out-a-way-to-pay policy ever since NAFTA was first proposed in the early '90s.
I am 46, I just graduated with an associates degree, in Mechanical Design.
I just learned how to think. Untill now, I would take what ever our leaders said as gospel. Now I wish I had never learned how to think.
Tell me, does the popular vote count in the presidential election?
My class mates here in Janesville seem to think thats the way it works. They do not know much about the electoral college.
No one takes Civics anymore, in fact I do not even know if its offered. So how does the younger generation learn about our government? They tell me they vote for a candidate based on looks.
Boy were screwed.
"Once more the Democratic leadership has shown it to be captive to the corporate interests represented by the Democratic Leadership Council."
If we are ever to have elected public servants who truly represent their constituents, we are going to have to remove corporate funding of elections and allow candidates to run on public funded campaigns.
After that we can work on the law that allows corporations to claim rights of "free speech" for every dollar they spend on advertising. That would entail changing the statute that gives them "personhood" under the law. Otherwise our personal rights will never be able to compete with the rights of corporations.
Fast Track agreements are undemocratic, unamerican and the vast majority of workers understand that. But they also generate other undemocratic home rule consequences that most are not aware of: The international arbitration court that supercedes any federal, state or local authority on labor or environmental standards of citizens here. Interests who claim absolute rights for compensation for damages if they are in any way denied access of their capital interests have to be compensated by the taxpayers. The extra-legal indemnity and punitary threat is a tremendous tool against localized fights to protect workers and industries against outside usurpation of land use, the environment as well as the decimation of localized economies. This is the fine print in NAFTA that no one will mention as THE threat to every principle of democracy of the people. Outrageous doesn't begin to describe the hypocrisy of both parties in providing the launch pad for an international oligarchy of pirates who will operate in this no man's land of disfranchised rule of law. To use Federal law formulated in a illegitimate process of collusion over democratic institutions to enable capital to trump legitimate law formed under principles of state's rights and local perogitive (always a...
Once more the Democratic leadership has shown it to be captive to the corporate interests represented by the Democratic Leadership Council.
Yes, worry for the survival of this party if the leadership continues to work against the interests of the working people of our country and sell out to Wall Street and Walmart.
Nancy, FAST TRACK is NOT ON OUR TABLE. But, impeachment is. Listen to the grassroots of your party, or lose it.///
Max Kaehn hit the nail on the head: A major part of many coporations profits come from externalizing costs in one way or another.
A rational and humanistic trade system would strive to remove all externalization strategies.
A truly fair and free trade system would probably have an negative short term impact on the U.S. since much of our wealth is derived from neo-imperialist behavior (e.g. unocal in burma).
I think in the long run fair and free trade would be a powerful force for improving the standard of living for the entire world and combating injustice.
Davis, it's really not that complicated at all, making it so only undermines potential solutions to unfair trade. We (90% of Americans)have needlessly sacrificed our standard of living and quality of life the last thirty years on the altar of "free" trade that primarily benefits corporations, wealthy investors, and to a lesser degree enough of the upper middle class catching relative crumbs to give the top .1 per cent electoral power beyond their numbers. My factory co-workers from twenty years ago, making $ 25-35,000 yearly, and deducting interest for rental properties until Reagan took that away in 86', still make $ 25-35,000 (if they're lucky)while everything is much more expensive. Before "free trade" there were no $ 150 sneakers for sale that were made in China by $ 1.00 a day exploited workers, being paid by American companies dumping toxins into China's rivers. The results from the rapacious corporate greed that drives "free trade" as we know it today, is best exemplified by the mass exodus of the underclass from Mexico to the U.S. since NAFTA was enacted, right into the waiting arms of some of the same corporations that decimated their economy. It took us better than thirty years...
You do NOT think free trade helped the US?
I'm a Canadian and we are getting RAPED over free trade - not just lumber and salmon and the like, though those especially in B.C.!
I can only imagine what Mexico is suffering under such a deal - slave labour is abolished in the empirial state, but all others MUST bow to it!!!
Ever wonder why the Mexicans kill each other to sell body parts to your people as replacements? Imagine what it would take to put YOU in that position. Now think: YOU put other people there EVERY DAY OF THEIR LIVES.
Still proud?
I'm enjoying reading everyone's perspective on trade in this blog (well done Journal team on choosing a very interesting subject), but I think something needs to be said on Mr. Moyer's performance in the interview. I don't think he was fair to the other side in this debate and allowed Mr. MacArthur implie some very untrue things about trade. I have no reason not to believe MacArthur's assertion that the Democrats are trying to get some corporate funding (they are politicians). But he is completely misrepresenting trade and trade policy, and Mr. Moyers didn't question his assertions outside of asking a few typical (and somewhat weak) questions (like, 'Isn't trade good for American consumers'?) Probably the most obviously untrue thing Mr. MacArthur said was that trade was beneficial only when it was between rich nations. I'm sorry but this false, and the reason why goes beyond the usual argument that trade with poor nations lowers the cost of the imported goods. We also export goods to these countries. Trade allows us to specialize in making the things we are good at and over time we become even better at making them). And despite Mr. MacArthur's claim of 'exploitation,' many workers...
I think that the realities posed by Peak Oil, Climate Change AND the economic and cultural conflicts created by globalization all point to an end to the globalized model of an economy. I'm really not so sure if globalization has done much good for anybody, especially the developing or undeveloped world. I've the argument a million times that globalization, led by the United States of course, provides a livilihood and a means to survive to lots and lots of people in Africa, Asia and South America, and that very well may be true. And then people at this point usually say how 'snobby' or 'elitist' it is to criticize the globalized economy that is giving these people jobs. Well I would strongly counter that by saying that's its actually very snobby and elitist to say THAT; that somehow people in the developing world should be happy and grateful for this wonderful bounty we've brought upon them. This ignores child labor in South Asia and South America, making toys for McDonalds for American children. This ignores the fact that in many African countries, in areas that are already ecologically and agriculturally precarious, many people there are barely scraping by growing food...
Re: Free Trade Much of the anti free trade argument comes from an elitist perspective, presumably a liberal one. These folks give limited consideration to the fact that free trade creates as many jobs as it eliminates, if not more, albeit in different occupations and geographical locations. One only need see the mile long trains grinding across the New Mexico desert to see the enormous impact of international trade.Just yesterday, I sought high tech technical assistance and talked to agents in India and Salt Lake City. What's the difference here? The U.S has always had a changing and sometimes a volatile economy. Current dynamics can be looked upon as an extension of a long time economic history and some people win and others lose, depending on the issues. Life in the U.S. can be difficult but it can also offer hope. A major question centers on the desirability of protecting obsolete economic activity. On the other hand, I also know that we do protect many industries, particularly in agriculture. To be entirely consistent on the matter, these barriers must be subjected to the same scrutiny as those in heavy industry, the needle and thread industries, etc. One issue that gets...
I live in Vermont & here there is an effort to promote the idea of being a 'localvore'...buying & consuming goods & products made and/or grown locally. It's good for the local economy, sustaining jobs, creating a sense of pride & it gives Vermonters the peace of mind knowing that the goods they buy have a quality unmatched by the cheap, shoddy & sometimes dangerous goods shipped in from China & elsewhere.
The things we buy locally may in some cases be more expensive, but the added cost benefits all of us here in the state, rather then sending those profits far afield.
Another part of this discussion should also involve the rampant consumerism in this country. Citizens should question whether or not, they honestly NEED all the goods that are advertised as vital to a better life. Will another TV, IPOD, cell phone, or vehicle, really make everything better in their lives, really fill that emptiness?
Americans need to learn to just say no to the 'latest & greatest' & discover that 'less really is more'.
Well, I'm a Berkeleyite so we are well schooled (esp. in the progressive relgious and social justice communities) on the Free Trade scam. I think some creative, heavy, on the spot reporting on how NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.have hurt labor here and screwed people in our countries would be welcome.
The solution is not in tearing down corporations or corporate power. Most of us survive by the grace of corporate benevolence. We need to understand that we have faced these problems before. Akido Morita, the founder of Sony, once told Peter Jennings that "Nations are a dying industry, corporations are the structures of the future". The problem is that corporations are 300 to 1,000 years behind governments on the evolutionary scale. We have barely reach 1215 A.D. and the Magna Carta. Corporations are structured at a lower form of human evolution and yet are increasing in power and influence -- but remember the price of liberty. We can learn from the founding of these United States and bring to bear all the lessons we learned in civics class and come together to form more perfect economic unions. The democratization of capital is the great movement of our generation -- if we do not succeed our children face a tenuous future. On 7/7/7 in a pristine mountain resort in the Sierra Nevada of California a small group of concerned citizens, founding parents if you will, is coming together to hold the First Intercontinental Congress to draft a constitution and a Plan...
I wish Omar were correct when he says that free trade is about lifting the developing world out of poverty. In fact, the developing word is being devastated by free trade and the requirements of the World Bank and the IMF that impoverished nations open their countries to outside investment (read, the U.S.) For all the talk of 'free' trade, the U.S. is actually quite protectionist of many of its goods. Where these goods are the same as, or similar to, goods produced in the developing country, the developing country can't compete with U.S. prices. It's sort of the Walmart effect at the national and international level.
John MacArthur and Greg Palast are in agreement about tariffs. American workers will have to demand them.I look forward to reading John's new book. Thank you for another great program Bill!
When I was younger, I remember thinking grand liberal thoughts about how hiring poor workers in poor countries would lift them out of poverty. Now that I am in my 40s and I am seeing Americans working service jobs without union help to insure them a working wage, I have become very nationalistic. I care less now about the people in poor countries who are seeking merely to feed their families and am concerned instead about the American service worker seeking to feed his family better. That nuance is at once slight and huge. Free trade has not helped America. As one post I read cites, those Nikes still break the piggy bank. Corporate America really does have the best of both worlds right now. It sells to us for ridiculously inflated prices while creating new markets abroad. If the American market collapsed for them ten years from now, they would still be developing huge markets overseas that are today in some respects like America was in the late 1940s. Coming out of WW2, we had little in creature comforts as we would come to know them. But by putting money into our pockets, corporate America built the consumer giant...
I had a hard time responding to the question because I'm Canadian. I know that relative to some other countries, the U.S. has not benefitted from free trade. However, in the free trade agreement with Canada, U.S. business has benefitted big time--and Canada has not. It all depends on who has the power, doesn't it? Also, just because American business might benefit doesn't mean that American workers benefit.
Only big multinational corp.
benefits from free trade. American middle class is struggling to stay afloat.but exxonbobil reporting 10billion profit per quarter.prisons are full and children growing without parent in foster home. 10billion cannot be accounted in Iraq reconstruction fund while tution fees and student loans are growing.
Whenever a person or corporation claims that jobs are being sent overseas in order to benefit the consumer, they are lying. If that claim is true, then why do Nike basketball shoes still cost $120? If those companies are using cheap overseas labor in order to benefit the consumer, then shouldn't those Nike's cost $30 or $40. The shoes that I wear, Saucony's, used to be made in Pennsylvania since some time in the late 1800's, but now they're made in China. I used to pay $50 for a pair, and I used to enjoy purchasing those shoes because I knew that an American was being paid a fair wage to make a good product that I liked. How has free trade benefited me, the consumer? I still pay $50 for the same pair of shoes that are made for pennies on the dollar in China, and now some American worker no longer has a job with a fair wage. Unfortunately, I am forced to purchase goods made in China because none of them are made in the USA anymore, and I am now complicit in the virtual enslavement of someone else on the other side of the world. The...
I was terribly saddened by this evening's program segment on so-called "free trade". I expected it to be a real wake-up call for people, based on the fact that reading transcripts of your recent speeches helped open my eyes to the nature of recent "elite plunder" in our society and around the world. Based on my own background as a journalist, I realize that you were injecting objectivity into the interview you conducted, but the approach seemed weirdly adversarial, given that your views on the subject are otherwise well-known. I regret having asked my son and some other younger people to tune in for a badly needed education on how unfettered transnational corporatism is ruining us, since you didn't go there. They'll only be more confused, as a result. Alas.
So-called "free" trade is absolutely an elitist concept.
Currently, there is no political party that represents the interests of working Americans.
Once upon a time the Democrats were for labor, the Republicans were for Business. Today, both parties pander to the big money lobbiests.
It wasn't just those opposed to the Iraq conflict who voted Democratic in '06. We also voted for a voice with the shrinking middle class.
If the Democrats can't figure this out, we will, once again, allow the big business interests to select a pro business president.
Most of my friends have lost their jobs since the fall of the Berlin Wall and have had to take new jobs paying less than half their previous salaries and have never recovered due to the NAFTA and the other Free Trade Agreements. We are on a spiral down into domestic public servant and customer service jobs
This is not only about losing jobs. It's about losing our freedom. Campaign financing of both parties by the same big money industries and million dollar lobbies, have left the voters with no representation. We are back to 1775 when the battle cry of our Founding Fathers was, "Taxation without representation is tyranny".
We the people must take control of BOTH PARTIES. We can dictate their platforms before the next election. Your vote has no power in the election because both parties are controlled by the corporatocracy. The election makes almost no difference.
The time to act is before the election. Now is the time to sieze control. Now is when your vote has power. The Lincoln Initiative is a grassroots movement that uses the tactics of the labor unions. Make demands and give an "or else". to both parties. Visit http://www.lincolninitiative.org Join us and make "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" a reality.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.
What about Walmart? Its operations are the closest thing to communism that this country has ever seen with their nickel and dime approach to American manufacturers and their sustaining threat that they will take their business elsewhere, ie. overseas. And then they do. What they did to Rubbermaid is a perfect example.
The working people of the United States are in the midst of a race to the bottom. When NAFTA was scooted through Congress under the nose of the American People, we weren't sure what it would constitute. The polls at the time said so, and there was no clear consensus for America to go through with it. Washington did anyway. They garnished it with the promises for a better future for American and Mexican workers. At the time, government estimates of illegal aliens from Mexico were in the 4-5 million range. Ten years later, we have estimates between 14 and 20 million. These folks didn't leave Mexico because they wanted to live near to their investment properties. They left because they needed to eat. Meanwhile, manufacturing in the US has disappeared. Farms can only survive if they are large and sufficiently subsidized. And people in the labor market now have to compete with other people who were guaranteed decent wages and working conditions, never got them, and now will work for the minimum of food and shelter. This race to the bottom as the result of trade agreements is not restricted to traditional labor markets. Millions of technical and science...
Helped the United States in what way(s)? If you're a worker with job skills that are easily deported to a developing country, then no. If you're a businessperson bringing U.S. products into developing nations, or out of developing nations and into the U.S., then yes. This is where we went wrong with free trade: At the same time we opened our commerce borders, we should have spent money on our educational infrastructure, to make it easier for American workers and businesspeople to adapt to a worldwide economy. We need to develop a comprehensive, effective public K-12 education policy, and then support it with federal tax dollars. We need to make post-secondary education more affordable for the low to middle classes. And we need to stop ripping off our college-aged children with student loan rates that can only be characterized as usurious. We also have to stop thinking that the only way to be successful is to be on a college track when you're in high school, or that post-secondary education opportunities should be almost entirely in the area of a 4-year baccalaureate degree. Whatever happened to all those skills that American workers had years ago, that made it possible for...
I don't specialize in economics, and am not claiming to be an expert.
From what I can see, free trade does help the United States. It creates trading partners, and trading partners are a lot less likely to engage in hostilities against you.
Now, there are plenty of problems this causes in other countries. Our so called free trade agreement with Mexico still allows us to subsidize all of our corn production, which destroyed the Mexican agriculture economy. Hence the influx of immigration.
Regarding the sweatshop / child labor issue, I would love to see some regulation come into play that makes American companies provide a better wage / benefits to those overseas. You can make it relative to their local economy, and still have cheaper labor. Might that boost the American economy abroad, as more and more people would rather word for an American company that provides benefits vs. a local one?
Just some thoughts. Look forward to seeing them torn apart ;-)
Free trade is less about helping Americans and more about lifting the developing world out of poverty. This will temporarily hurt wages and jobs here at home, but eventually things will even out. The problem is how bad things will have to get before they improve. In that light, the Democrats' recent passage of labor and environmental protections in regards to free trade agreements was encouraging, but only a first step.
Free Trade is a rip-off on a grand scale. There can never be free trade between nations with vast differences in ethical, social, natural resources and economic standards.
Labour - people - are not a commodity! Equality of Trade is what's needed.
It's hypocritical for any country to buy goods (from another country) which are produced by slave/child labour or other employment practices that it bans within its own borders.
Free trade has ultimately hurt the US economy due to the fact that many of our trading partners do not have the expense of environmental policies to insure a minimum quality of life for there citizens.
The lack of a national health care system further incumbers our exporters who are responsible for shouldering a large portion of private healthcare expenses for their employees. Most of our trading partners have national systems where pools share cost so that employers are only responsible for a small portion of the overall expense.
Sen. Byron Dorgan (D,ND) was being interviewed last December and he mentioned that we were losing a lot in our trade negotiations that were being conducted by the Bush State Department. Sen. Dorgan said, "Trade negotiations have historically been conducted by the Commerce Department and their prime objective was to insure that American manufacturers and exporters received fair treatment. The State Department's objectives are not compatible with what is best for American business and workers."
A Fair Trade policy is the only path to follow if we want this country to continue as a major economic force on this planet.
I think free trade agreements have been a net benefit, but they have considerable down sides. Trade will only be truly free when transactions bear the cost of all the negative externalities involved; right now the economy is distorted by corporations getting free rides from government on pollution, health care for workers, and much more.
The question is really what has it done to the other countries involved in the 'free trade' with the US; and they have not faired well.
Free trade is not Fair trade; it is only a device to open markets for the corporate oligarchy, and usually benefits only the US multinationals who get concessions from foreign governments plus tax incentives and underwriting from the US government; this invariably gives them an unfair advantage in any trade situation.
The Chinese Yuan Renminbi remains to be fixed to the dollar. If it was allowed to float Chinese products would increase in price and make Mexico easier to compete. This would make many new jobs in Mexico (and in the USA). It would take much pressure off the problem of illlegal immigration. It also would benefit China by making it cheaper to import products from Boing and Catapillar.
Comments
Posted by: nunya | April 11, 2008 4:16 PM
Posted by: MARY BEAULIEU | April 11, 2008 11:58 AM
Posted by: Jack Martin | April 10, 2008 11:52 AM
Posted by: Irene | April 10, 2008 11:40 AM
Posted by: Austin | April 9, 2008 1:28 PM
Posted by: chris wentworth | June 7, 2007 11:47 PM
Posted by: christopher wentworth | June 7, 2007 11:42 PM
Posted by: Al | May 31, 2007 10:24 PM
Posted by: Perry Logan | May 21, 2007 7:51 AM
Posted by: Andrew Paes | May 21, 2007 4:11 AM
Posted by: Jeff Sharpless | May 21, 2007 4:01 AM
Posted by: curt huff | May 21, 2007 12:35 AM
Posted by: paul cunningham | May 20, 2007 8:27 PM
Posted by: Marty McGowan | May 20, 2007 8:20 PM
Posted by: Richard Miller | May 20, 2007 12:18 PM
Posted by: George L. Monahan | May 20, 2007 11:12 AM
Posted by: Ed Sweeney | May 20, 2007 10:59 AM
Posted by: Linda Sutton | May 19, 2007 6:19 PM
Posted by: funkyj | May 19, 2007 5:38 PM
Posted by: Rick | May 19, 2007 5:22 PM
Posted by: Jim R | May 19, 2007 5:08 PM
Posted by: Graeme Milligan | May 19, 2007 12:44 PM
Posted by: davis | May 19, 2007 12:27 PM
Posted by: Geoff Trowbridge | May 19, 2007 10:17 AM
Posted by: Bill Kine | May 19, 2007 9:51 AM
Posted by: klad | May 19, 2007 8:25 AM
Posted by: SAndy Hunter | May 19, 2007 3:03 AM
Posted by: Michael Rogers | May 19, 2007 2:45 AM
Posted by: Brenda Berck | May 19, 2007 2:31 AM
Posted by: Liz Sasek | May 19, 2007 2:18 AM
Posted by: rowland | May 19, 2007 2:03 AM
Posted by: Brenda Berck | May 19, 2007 1:41 AM
Posted by: subal goswami | May 19, 2007 1:26 AM
Posted by: Andrew Lovell | May 19, 2007 1:15 AM
Posted by: Constance | May 19, 2007 12:40 AM
Posted by: Leiph | May 19, 2007 12:12 AM
Posted by: (The Other) Katherine Harris | May 19, 2007 12:07 AM
Posted by: Nancy V | May 18, 2007 11:40 PM
Posted by: Nancy Evans | May 18, 2007 11:40 PM
Posted by: Nancy Evans | May 18, 2007 11:39 PM
Posted by: Lance Sanchious | May 18, 2007 11:26 PM
Posted by: Bob Reichenbach | May 18, 2007 11:04 PM
Posted by: KAS | May 18, 2007 10:25 PM
Posted by: Charles Mac | May 18, 2007 8:53 PM
Posted by: Linda | May 18, 2007 7:32 PM
Posted by: Michael Gorsuch | May 18, 2007 6:01 PM
Posted by: Omar | May 18, 2007 1:54 PM
Posted by: Perry | May 18, 2007 7:54 AM
Posted by: Richard | May 17, 2007 9:50 PM
Posted by: Max Kaehn | May 17, 2007 9:48 PM
Posted by: Al Buono | May 17, 2007 8:22 PM
Posted by: Glen Parker | May 17, 2007 8:10 PM