Since Free Traders believe that America should lower its standard of living to help the third world

[Zalatix]

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2012, 03:18 AM - Edit history (1)

and they are unwilling to address the consequences of this belief, I am going to start listing the consequences of this belief. Might as well sticky this, since the consequences will just keep on coming.

Free traders can start telling these people that they need to keep being poor to help the poor outside of America. Well, America, it's time to RISE UP. Write to these Free Traders and share with them the sacrifices that you are making to help the poor in other nations rise up the ladder.

Demand from them an answer to the question of why Americans should be forced to suffer through this:

Number Of Americans On Food Stamps Hits Another High Years After Recession's End
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/03/number-of-americans-on-snap_n_1074344.html

Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=2

Formerly Great Cities All Over America Are Turning Into Open, Festering Sores
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/formerly-great-cities-all-over-america-are-turning-into-open-festering-sores

Nearly half of Americans either live in poverty or are low income, census data says
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/nearly_half_americans_either_l.html

^^^ Yes, I know, poor here is better than poor in China. Oh wait a second...

More Americans than Chinese struggling to put food on the table: Gallup Poll
http://blogs.cfed.org/cfed_news_clips/2011/10/more-americans-than-chinese-st.html

"I think I upset my friend by telling her to brace herself for foodstamps... "
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002131625



And if the Free Trade counter response is, once again, that Americans use more resources than the rest of the world, then perhaps they would like to explain how this is happening in foreign countries where American jobs are going?
[img][/img]


http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/collaboration/2007/summer/outsourcing-pollution.shtml
A recent Carnegie Mellon study finds that the United States may be reducing its own carbon emissions by importing goods from countries that are creating even more emissions in the production process than the United States would have originally.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/how-big-deal-outsourced-pollution
It's a dicey question, though the first step is to get a handle on how much carbon pollution actually gets outsourced. And the answer seems to be: quite a bit. A new study by Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science finds that the United States outsources about 11 percent of its emissions abroad, while Japan outsources nearly 18 percent and European nations outsource anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent of their emissions—most of it to developing countries. On the flip side, nearly one-quarter of China's emissions, for instance, go into making goods for other countries. Here's a map showing annual net flows (in millions of tons of CO2)

How exactly is all this outsourced pollution benefitting the poor of the third world?

Oh and free traders might also want to consider how much slavery they are promoting with "free trade":
http://slaveryfootprint.org

Oh and some people in these outsourced countries might also differ with the claim that we're helping them. Like the farmers in Mexico:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/130,000_farmers_protest_in_Mexico_against_NAFTA

http://www.eurasiareview.com/21102011-nafta-is-starving-mexico-oped/
Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) became the law of the land, millions of Mexicans have joined the ranks of the hungry. Malnutrition is highest among the country’s farm families, who used to produce enough food to feed the nation.


Edited to add, 01/08/2012:
You can also ask these free traders this: What will the poor people of the third world do when America's economy collapses and we can't support them anymore?

[FreakinDJ]

1. +10000

[Laelth]

2. I call the free-traders' position what it is: TREASON.

An American citizen commits treason when he or she advocates policies that benefit other nations at the expense of the people of the United States. No politician should ever justify a policy position by arguing that it will improve the lives of people in other countries when they know full well that said policy will simultaneously hurt the American people.

It appears that treason is perfectly acceptable these days. Personally, I find this entirely unacceptable.

-Laelth

[Zalatix]

7. Oh now you're an isolationist. <sarcasm>

A bigot, a nationalist, you're not a citizen of the world! You hate the world!

No, really, I have encountered those arguments right here on the DU.

[Little Star]

23. +1 I never understood those arguments right here on DU either...

I have always felt that you have to be a strong & healthy nation first, then you can help other nations rise. If you are not, then what help can you be? Seems like those other nations would pull you down with them instead of you being able to help rise them up.

[Zalatix]

28. They never think about the consequences

When America's economy tanks, who will support the poor of other nations then?

[ananda]

17. Yes, treason and pure evil.

Free trade is the bane of our existence these days,
along with corporate rule.

[FreakinDJ]

29. and Administrations that "Cook the Books" to say it doesn't harm Americans / America

look how many times they have changed the legal difinition of "Made in America"

or how they Measure GDP in America

It's Fruad

[Laelth]

39. It is fraud. It is also treason.

And I think it behooves us all to use that word--treason--whenever our elected officials betray us in favor of multinational corproations who owe no loyalty to the people of the United States.

-Laelth

[AnotherMcIntosh]

81. Absolutely!

[unlawflcombatnt]

146. Amen--Treason it is. We need TARIFFS now!

I couldn't agree more.

Advocating the loss of American jobs, suppression of American wages, and resultant impoverishment of American workers certainly IS treason in my book.

And also worth mentioning is all this B.S. about "competitiveness." This is nothing but a greed-motivated, anti-American soundbite for claiming that American workers make too much money to compete with their enslaved foreign counterparts.

Where the hell does a $300K/year newscaster get off at, implying that an American factory worker should make $3K/year to "compete" with a foreign slave-wage workers?

What kind of hypocrisy does it take for a $1 MILLION/year CEO or junior executive to claim that an American worker should accept less than $3K/year to be competitive with his impoverished foreign counterpart?

--------------

We need to end all this Free-Traitor B.S. right now, and go back to the policies implemented by our forefathers--High Protective Tariffs on foreign imports to protect American industry (and now workers) from unreasonable & un-American foreign competion.

We did it with the British and the entirety of Europe in the 1800's.

Why can't we do it now?

[Zalatix]

147. About time someone had the guts to say it straight. Many thanks! n/t

[Catherina]

3. I beg to differ about the use of resources

Americans still consume the most.

There's a real problem with pollution control south of the border but people live a lot more simply.


Other than that, I'm proud to rec your fine post

[Zalatix]

10. Thanks! We consume the most because of Republican / Conservative principles.

Liberals have pushed for conservation, recycling, alternative energy: reduce, reuse, recycle.

I can live just as comfortably with an electric or biodiesel car as I can with a giant SUV/land yacht. (And electric/biodiesel powered vehicles will get larger because of technological advances) There is also the option of hydrogen fuel cells.

Liberals are always looking for new ways to enjoy the same lifestyle with less resources.

[Catherina]

34. I'm a lot harsher than you are

I think, generally speaking, Liberals aren't more than a notch above conservatives because the problem is the whole American lifestyle.

Please bear in mind you're talking with someone (me) who got so sick of consumerism and waste in the US, that I moved somewhere where people walk, weave their own cloth, wash their clothes by hand etc, and don't put such a strain on resources.

I think we consume the most because we don't give a thought to how extravagant our lifestyles really are.

Warning. Semi-Luddite rant ahead. The use of *you* is general.

WHY do you need even an electric or biodiesel car? To get to work so you can earn enough money to make car, gas, maintenance and insurance payments? To drive to a big store miles away because they killed all the mom & pop stores so the corporations could squeeze you dry for fat profits? To go to work so you can afford to buy clothes to wear to work? To go go work to earn money to pay for appliances because you don't have time to wash/clean by hand or really cook anymore?

I agree that "Liberals have pushed for conservation, recycling, alternative energy: reduce, reuse, recycle" but it's one of those tip-of=the-iceberg things that borders on cosmetics. It's a good start and a lot of important education went into it but we're in a hole so deep I don't even know where to start anymore. All the things you wrote about are good and I hope we keep pushing things but I despair that we're not looking at this deeply enough.

I'm not talking about you or I wouldn't have rec'd your thread. Those are just general thoughts of a subject near and dear to my heart.

I wish more people could see first-hand the work that goes on down here and how people are exploited to get their resources to the US market, where people don't even think about the tears that went into producing them and getting them there. Thanks for the work you're doing getting people to think about these things.

[Zalatix]

38. Thanks, one thing though...

I like having a car so I can bring food home to my family in one trip. Washing my own clothes, weaving my own cloth and walking, cost me time. Time I could be spending writing or enjoying myself. I do like to cook for myself and that takes about 1-2 hours of my time.

I shop at mom & pop stores and big stores and there's never a time when mom and pop stores sell stuff cheaper... not even food, which is made here. We need a solution for that, seriously, like co-op buying.

[Catherina]

43. Fully understood

My real eyeopener came from living in a much simpler place.

Those big bags of groceries we haul are part of the problem too. Do we really need to haul that much food back? I did it too so I'm not slamming you and hope nothing in my post comes across that way.

How much food do we really need to haul back? When I first moved down here, I was hiring a driver to go down to the city and stock up on stuff I thought I needed at Costco. After a few months I realized, all I had to do was go local, walk to the very next corner and buy small things like a bag of rice, a chicken breast, maybe a few veggies and some avocados for amazing dinners.

We can't really do that in the states. You can barely walk anywhere because there are so many cars.

If I were God for just one day, I'd change back the whole layout corporations destroyed so people could have the time again.

I shouldn't have said weaving your own clothes because that's more of a communal activity and not everyone does it. Plus, down here you weave a few beautiful pieces and you can wear them for life.

Washing your own clothes? You'd be shocked at how little time it really takes but you need the setup. This is a very basic, uncovered one where people use one side to wash clothes and the other to wash dishes. The middle is always full of clean water.



If you don't have one in your own house, you walk a few blocks to a public pila



and really enjoy yourself catching up on the latest gossip, discussing politics, movies, whatever you want to.


But the landscape is totally different. Banks and corporations don't own all the land and then make you sell your soul to the devil to pay it off. And corporations haven't managed to own the landscape yet.

We're in a pickle in the states. Even co-op buying has its problems because we're still wasting huge resources trucking in chicken and eggs from a few central locations when chickens are the easiest thing to raise in a small yard.

I think we let corporations complicate our lives so much that we don't even realize the quality of life they stole from us until we see it elsewhere.

I like your posts, I like where you're headed. I hope I don't look like a jerk for being such a luddite. It was my concern over energy and waste that changed me to this. It all went from Why? to Why not?

It's a slippery slope once you start thinking too much.

[Odin2005]

57. I actually bought a little manual clothes washer at the thrift store I work at.

It's a plastic cylinder with a cork-screw thing in it that you pump up and down to agitate the clothes. I much prefer it to paying $2.25 to wash and dry my clothes in my building's laundry room.

[Catherina]

60. Do you have a picture of it? Or a similar one?

That sounds neat and I have someone in mind to give it to (college student).

One of my friends had a contraption he hooked up to his exercise bike in the basement. He'd dump the clothes in it and peddle away, burning calories. I wish I had paid closer attention.

[Odin2005]

61. Here's a pic of it I found online:

http://tinyhouseblog.com/tiny-furnishings/tiny-washing-machine/

[Catherina]

67. That's so cute

My hand literally went to my throat with a smile when I saw this. It's perfect for the person I had in mind

There are even more models listed in the comments, along with pros and cons. Thank you Odin


Look at this. It's bigger than my friend's contraption but it's the same principle



http://homelessdave.com/hdwashingman.htm

[MADem]

80. I used one of those for a few years. Worked a treat. I gave it to a relative living in NYC in a

small apartment with stairs as as a feature.

It's still going strong, last I heard.

[joshcryer]

76. I like Rosling's view of the washing machine:

[Zalatix]

94. Been delaying this because it's a long one...

I've been thinking this over and tossing it around with my wife. Please forgive if this sounds overly analytical...

If I had a garden and plenty of meat nearby I wouldn't need a car so much, of course. And walking never hurt anyone. However I would prefer to drive rather than walk to the next Comic Con and I bring a lot of comic books, anime, etc. which I'd need a car for. What I want is one of the cars of old, hybridized with the tech of new - eco friendly cars that last for decades. Modern industry does not even ALLOW that. Everything is planned to break down!

In actuality we do have chickens. 6 hens (for eggs) which we feed using compost heaps. They go for the worms, too, and the compost helps grow food. We're not ready for meat chickens yet and the eggs don't come often - laying too many eggs destroys a hen's calcium levels.

Your food security seems to be based on a certain degree of decentralization. I like that aspect. We need more of that in America.

Clothes that last for life? I'd settle for pieces that last for 10-20 years. Not happening in America or most of the modern world - gotta buy, buy, buy! Weave once and wear for 10 years? Hmmmmmmm, actually I could go for that. Or I could barter with someone else and call it a localized version of Comparative Advantage. (Long explanation)

Washing dishes and clothes? I really like the idea of throwing dishes in the dish washer and clothes in the washer and dryer, letting it take care of the work, while I do something else. HOWEVER... today's washers and dryers break down inside of 1-2 years. They make new models of these things every 6 months according to what the manager at Best Buy told me. SIX MONTHS!!! WTF! These things used to last 10 years or more!

So now you present a valid logical question: how much time does the average person lose hand-washing clothes and dishes, versus working their rear end off to afford a dishwasher or clothes washer/dryer that keeps breaking down?

I must have a refrigerator. But again, corporations have it so they don't last, either. I can do without the fancy computers on the dishwasher, though. Which takes me back to the question in the previous paragraph.

I must concede that if electricity is lost, you have the advantage.

However I can NOT live without computers. Computers can be incredibly eco-friendly if you use them to substitute resource-heavy stuff, most classically the reading and making of books. Keep them running cool and you add 2 years to their lifespan. But again... why aren't computers made to last??? Also, MP3's save me resources because I don't need to buy CDs (just the mp3's), and I listen to a LOT of music while I work. But my wife, kids and I go to concerts about once every 6 months, too. You guys probably have tons of musicians in walking distance.

On the surface of this issue, computers are the one thing I would say I'd miss if I lived near you, and I'm not sure about computers since you're posting on the DU, and you guys probably do have refrigerators. I do have but one objection: what about access to medicine and medical services?

Then there are all the huge advantages that come with your way of life.

The biggest advantage, that can't be easily matched here, is your strong community. In the modern world we fall prey to economic collapses from time to time - depressions. We're running a big risk of a dollar collapse, for instance.

You know the drill, big time gurus are out now talking about stocking up on gold. Gold is stupid. In an economic collapse situation, you can't defend it easily if it's in your possession, and if you have stocks of it "elsewhere" someone's going to steal it - basically, gold that is not in your hands will never make it to your possession. Others who think they are smarter than the crowd, say that you should own a farm. This is actually a smarter idea. Hyperinflation, which people fear could happen soon, means one apple will cost $1000. Ye olde apple tree is now a well of red gold. Owning a farm? Now that's an empire. Let me label this, "localized food security".

BUT... what no one talks about in an economic collapse is, alongside a good garden or farm, the one most important thing of all: your community. When you say "and really enjoy yourself catching up on the latest gossip, discussing politics, movies, whatever you want to", that means when an economy collapses around you, you have these people to rely on. Combine that with the localized food security that you seem to enjoy, and you have what you need to ride out the kind of collapse that America is now flirting with.

So let's get back to the whole hand-washing stuff lifestyle. The bicycle-powered washing machine you posted info about, seriously? Do they have stuff like that where you live? Could you power that thing with solar? Without the battery setup, that would be like fusing a modern lifestyle with some honest exercise. And keeping some equipment off the trash heap, too.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. Actually Mexico city has harsher smog control

Than any city north of the border. It's worked, but I am betting having to smog check a car every six months would drive folks in LA nuts, so would leaving the car parked once a week after three years.

[Catherina]

71. Thanks. I didn't know that

In Guatemala, there are literally no controls. You get used to it but it's ghastly.

After thinking about it a bit, that makes sense. Mexico is a first world country next to Guatemala.

[Little Star]

4. I never understood how any ordinary citizen could support free trade. n/t

[SammyWinstonJack]

21. I've never understood how any working class person could vote repug. One would think it difficult

to stab oneself in the back and yet....

[Lydia Leftcoast]

165. With the "moderate" Democrats supporting "free" trade all the time

why should they vote Dem?

I can see a working class person having a "what have you done for me lately?" attitude.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. Shouldn't they start the ball rolling by giving their money to the 1% in other countries?

Nothing beats leading by example, after all.

[Little Star]

8. +1

[Zalatix]

12. +1!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

82. I think that they did with the bank bailouts. Some for our 1%. Some for the foreign countries' 1%.

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 03:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Our money to them.

[orpupilofnature57]

6. Somebody has to pay for that 600% profit....

Kitten Eaters little store made. The Escalation of imprisonment that ShrubCo Sealed is rearing it's ugly head ,and unless we make those people culpable they will imprison us, through poverty.

[DCBob]

9. Shouldnt we as progressives consider ourselves citizens of the world?

As such we should care about the quality of life of people living in other countries.

[Zalatix]

11. Didn't you read the OP? How about telling this to the poor of America

You know, those who don't have a job, those who are on food stamps, all of them.

Tell them that they're losing their jobs because "we should care about the quality of life of people living in other countries."

Will you do this?

[DCBob]

13. Yes. I dont think these goals are necessarily mutually exclusive.

We need to care about the quality of life of all people regardless of where they live.

[Zalatix]

14. So you think that impoverishing America is necessary for this?

What happens when we run out of resources to sacrifice? Say, jobs? What do the poor do in other nations when our economy implodes?

Free Traders and 'citizens of the world' never have an answer for that.

[DCBob]

15. no.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

169. If we REALLY cared about the poor in other countries

we wouldn't let our corporations go in there and undercut their existing businesses and agricultural sectors.

Instead, we would encourage the development of trade blocs of countries with similar living standards that could each play on their own strengths and rise together in a more equitable fashion. A REAL free trade bloc made up of Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean nations would make sense. A REAL free trade bloc made up of the U.S. and Canada would make sense. The EU made sense as long as it was made up of Western European countries. Adding Eastern Europe (which would have made a great free trade bloc on its own) caused job flight from West to East and allowed Eastern Europeans to flood in the UK (the only country that allowed free immigration of Eastern Europeans) and take the jobs formerly held by low-income Brits.

Put rich countries and poor countries in the same trade bloc, and you automatically get jobs rushing downhill into the cheap labor areas.

[kenny blankenship]

18. As you see, they'll just deny that it is happening

Or if it is happening, it's not because of lawless trade. Very much like Global Warming deniers.

[fascisthunter]

42. yup... until it happens to their selfish selves

I love how the selfish claim to be empathetic to others around the globe without sacrificing a thing themselves, but watching others do the sacrificing for them instead.

[treestar]

35. Exactly. This is a false argument.

Americans in general aren't impoverished. We need a social safety net for those who are. But most Americans live much better than the average third world person. Demanding they stay that way so we can continue to have relative luxuries (relatively speaking) is just evil. Chinese people and Indian people are considered some sort of inferior slaves.

Has nothing to do with the 1%. People in China aren't going to stay in rural poverty because they hate the 1%. Just not human nature. Deal with it.

And we aren't "free traders." OP is trying to create an "evil" name for anyone who argues against his hyper-nationalism.

[Laelth]

20. When did Washington become the capital of the world, as opposed to the capital of the U.S.?

As soon as Washington becomes the capital of the world, I will expect legislators who work there to serve the interests of all the people of the world.

For the moment, however, and as far as I know, the job of legislators who work in Washington is to serve the people of the United States, and if they serve the people of the world instead of serving the people of the United States, they are guilty of treason.

-Laelth

[AnotherMcIntosh]

83. February 21-28, 1972

[pampango]

22. Yes. It is not "us vs. them" it is "us AND them".

Last edited Sat Jan 7, 2012, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)

European progressives have domestic and foreign trade policies that support and protect their citizens while encouraging the development of poor countries. That is a better deal than the "us vs. them" approach which leads to attempts to wall the US off from the world's poor.

As Europe's experience shows, the blame for our increasing level of poverty and inequality is not at the feet of the world's poor but at our own rich.

The US' per capita income is about $47,000. That of the EU is about $31,000. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita) What makes their society better than ours? The fact that their incomes are much, much more equitably distributed and their safety net is much stronger.

The US has plenty of income and wealth compared to the rest of the world. What we lack is the political will to see that income and wealth distributed fairly as it is in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea and most other developed economies. Is our lack of political will to change how our society treats its own workers and most vulnerable the fault of the Third World and the global poor? Or should the blame be placed on our own rich and corporations who prevent this change?

[Little Star]

27. +1

[Little Star]

25. How can we help others when we can't even help our own? n/t

[JDPriestly]

33. Free trade does not improve the quality of life of people living in other countries

unless you think that working 12-14 hours a day in a dirty factory and living in a dormitory is preferable to working in the fields and living with your family in the traditional community of your ancestors.

I would like to see a study on what free trade has done to the family structure in countries such as Mexico or China. I'd like to see what it has done to the environment in Japan. No one seems to care about the effects on society of free trade. It's just numbers, just economics to those who advocate it.

[treestar]

36. You're not against free trade, but the industrial revolution itself.

Which is not likely to be undone, barring some nuclear holocaust.

It's not us v. the Chinese, with us having to be the ones who get to live in a post-industrial age, while pretending the rest of the world has to stay in the pre-industrial age. Hyper-nationalism of the worst sort (though it is not just the US, but the First World as a whole).

[Populist_Prole]

45. You're setting up a strawman to knock down

He's against "free trade" as it is practiced now by the corporatists...which certainly CAN be undone....as it was "done" by the corporatists in the first place, albeit incrementally; It's not like "free trade" we have is the natural order of things that just became to be owing to the normal viccissitudes of time. What you are doing is trying to discredit the argument by thethering it to its most extreme proponents and attacking THAT argument: Luddites, buggy whips, build a wall around the US blah blah blah...............

[treestar]

48. What argument?

What is "free trade?"

What are people advocating here? Tariffs? That creates trade wars.

We can't be isolationist in these days, and I'm not sure we can do much about the third world being cheaper workers - we can hope that China and India rise to our standards and that will even it out.

It used to take place within this country - factories moved to the South, which had a lower wage base. That was OK simply because southerners took jobs from northerners and westerners? But foreigners have no right to better their condition.

The economy is going to go beyond the bounds of the U.S. So what can we do about that? And it affects the 99% negatively if we retreated within ourselves.

[Populist_Prole]

58. Again with the buzzwords playing into the corporatitist's hands

"isolationist"? Another strawman. Since when did this issue become Hobson's Choice? A place practicing beggar thy neighbor mercantilist policies ( and as a multinatnational, mostly US company's toady ) against a nation practicing unilateral open trade regardless of unfair advantage ( currency manipulation, oppressive regimes ) will net the former a huge trade imbalance, which the latter should have every right to take measures to mitigate.

"Trade wars"? Not bloody likely. Not much of a war, and certainly nothing to fear from sabre rattling by a nation currently having a titanic trade imbalance. "Trade war" is just a term the corporate media uses to scare low-info voters who don't read into the issue. As it is now with the current imbalance, every "deal" made is a relative loss for the US: Making more of them is not going to improve our lot. Making less of them would be a gain, in and of itself. Maybe no need to. The simple threat to do so could level the playing field. why the hell would they "retaliate" against their biggest market? And what are they going to do with all their T-bills? Make a bank run? We're broke. Beggar thy neighbor made them from a 3-rd world country to a first world power. Good for them. Keeping those policies are in the exact best interests of the 1 percent.

"It used to take place within this country - factories moved to the South, which had a lower wage base. That was OK simply because southerners took jobs from northerners and westerners?"

No it's not fine. It never was, and never will be. It was "fine" for the capitalists though. Anybody could see those moves in retrospect as just a waypoint in the move offshore.

"But foreigners have no right to better their condition."

False dilemma. Capitalists aren't offshoring to make foreigner's lives better, they're doing it to fatten their bottom lines at the 99 percent's expense. I see very few well-heeled types espousing globalism as enlightened though willing to throw themselves under the bus to prove the theory so practical and good.

Edit: I think what Petrus said in post #32 summed it up tidier than I did.

[treestar]

79. So what do you propose be done?

Just exactly how do you think the US can exclude other countries from international trade?

[Zalatix]

88. They're excluding our workers. Do you get it yet?

[treestar]

111. What do you propose be done?

And we are not excluded. Our unemployment rate is not 100%.

[Zalatix]

112. Tariffs. China uses them against us, we have a right to use them against China.

The WTO, which I'd actually like to get out of, allows the US to raise tariffs for the specific purposes of balancing the trade deficit.

Oh and before you say "we'll start a trade war", hello, one is being fought against us right now!

[treestar]

115. Then why not advocate for that?

And don't run away from any arguments against them, but deal with them.

How much should they be, for what and explain how it will keep jobs here.

[Zalatix]

116. I have never run away from arguments. However, you have.

The title of this thread is about people like you who believe we should suffer a lower standard of living to provide the rest of the world a better one. I called you out, and others like you, to go out and tell this to America's poor.

I sure as hell am telling people every single day that they should not have to make such sacrifices. You should be proud enough to tell them that they should.

Until you are willing to do this I really see no reason to go any further with this. Because I really, really want you to take your case to the people and see how they feel. Perhaps when they see your views for what they are and reject you, you'll come back and say everyone out there is stupid. Who knows? I just want your "impoverish America to help the world" agenda exposed. However it gets done, I want it exposed to the public.

[treestar]

118. You have made not one argument here for the tariff, not one

and you've merely attacked me, and I have not said nearly any of what you claimed I did. You are too sensitive on this subject for some reason to be objective in the least.

Americans buy Chinese crap at Walmart because it's cheaper. Tell them they should not be allowed to do that and should spend on higher prices. That IS lowering their standard of living, too.

Explain how much the tariffs should be and why they will make more jobs available to us. And while you're at it, explain to the Chinese why they should not take part in any economy growth or world trade because it's inconvenient to Americans.

[Zalatix]

122. Let's look at what you previously said, and my questions that you previously avoided

I said, "The title of this thread is about people like you who believe we should suffer a lower standard of living to provide the rest of the world a better one."

You say you have not said nearly any of what I claim you did? Well, let's see, you have previously written:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=52324

"Well I recall the statistic that Americans as %5 of the population were using 30% of the world's resources. Environmentalists thought that a bad thing - something Americans should feel guilty about. So it is not that simply as issue. Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards so the third world can do better - what is it about third world people that they must live in squalor so we can live in relative luxury (people are often desperate to migrate here, remember that).

Of course a specific person will say "my job is lost for it" but the Chinese guy could say "why should I remain in third world poverty so that some American can keep a nice job?"

Maybe some of it should come at our expense. We are like the 1% in world terms."

I previously responded to you in particular:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=59080
what will the poor nations of the world do when America runs out of jobs to give them? What will they do when our economy, the vein they've been feeding off of, collapses?

You fled the conversation as soon as I asked you that.

I guess that it's downright useless to ask you how your argument stands up to the fact that foreign outsourced factories generate a lot more pollution than factories here, and that many foreign people are enslaved to produce cheap goods for here.

I also asked you to tell your "Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards" story to the people.

You might as well just get used to me challenging you on this because from here on I'm just going to cut and paste until I get answers.

[treestar]

149. Stop having a war with me

And answer the question.

Explain how much the tariff should be, and show how it will increase job opportunities in the US. Or come up with some other plan.

This subject causes much whining, blaming and complaining on DU. Never is a solution composed - and one that allow that Indians, Chinese and others also have the right to better their situation to be more like ours. I don't see how anyone can feel right about complaining that our overall national situation is getting a little tense, so others should stay down. We can't expect sympathy for that.

[Zalatix]

150. My questions came first and I will NOT stop demanding answers to them. EVER.

Edited to add: This is a war against your arguments, not you. Stop feeling persecuted.


I said, "The title of this thread is about people like you who believe we should suffer a lower standard of living to provide the rest of the world a better one."

You say you have not said nearly any of what I claim you did. But I have shown documentation that you did say what I claim you said.

I previously responded to you in particular, several days before this thread came along:

What will the poor nations of the world do when America runs out of jobs to give them? What will they do when our economy, the vein they've been feeding off of, collapses?

Finally, I challenged you and others who feel like you to tell your "Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards" story to the people.

I will not let this conversation go anywhere until those questions are answered, because I asked them before you asked your questions, and I know you have no answer.

You can either answer them or abandon this discussion. But I will never, ever back down in my fight for America's working class. BY GOD.

[treestar]

151. I did not claim that!

Quit lying.

We already overall have the highest lifestyle in the world.

When America runs out of jobs to give them? That's absurd. Jobs exist outside of America. All jobs don't originate in America. The US is not the only source of economic activity.

Why is the American working class better than any others? And they are better off and higher paid than those in the third world. The third world is only beginning to have one, even. Why aren't you fighting for them?

And what is to be done other than whine and blame and infer that others are taking something that apparently belongs to us? Your post reveals that you literally think we are the only ones that matter! How did the world exist before 1776?

[Zalatix]

152. It is not a lie, you did say that. And it is documented. Once again:

I said, "The title of this thread is about people like you who believe we should suffer a lower standard of living to provide the rest of the world a better one."

You claim that you have not said nearly any of what I claim you did. Well, let's see, you have previously written:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=52324

"Well I recall the statistic that Americans as %5 of the population were using 30% of the world's resources. Environmentalists thought that a bad thing - something Americans should feel guilty about. So it is not that simply as issue. Maybe as a nation we should lower our standards so the third world can do better - what is it about third world people that they must live in squalor so we can live in relative luxury (people are often desperate to migrate here, remember that).

Of course a specific person will say "my job is lost for it" but the Chinese guy could say "why should I remain in third world poverty so that some American can keep a nice job?"

Maybe some of it should come at our expense. We are like the 1% in world terms."

Now I am challenging you to take your case to a crowd and see how they respond. See if you don't alienate large SWATHS of Americans with that "argument".

And I am asking you again, as I've asked you a million times:
what will the poor nations of the world do when America runs out of jobs to give them? What will they do when our economy, the vein they've been feeding off of, collapses?

I am repeating to you, again, the undisputable facts:
Foreign outsourced factories generate a lot more pollution than equivalent factories here.
Many foreign people are enslaved to produce cheap goods for here.

[treestar]

153. Absurd. America is not the only place jobs originate!

When our economy collapse? (Which it won't) that does not mean everyone else will "collapse" (whatever TH that means. People will keep trying to survive).

[Zalatix]

154. Then you do not understand the nature of our trade deficit. Allow me to explain, with CITES.

You have yet to cite anything you've claimed. Even once.

If the American economy collapses, here's what happens.

China lost 20 million jobs when America's crisis exploded in 2008. This is largely due to the drop in exports to America.
Cite: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/world/asia/02iht-china.1.19860807.html

Now imagine how bad that'll be when our economy goes boom.

America is China's 2nd biggest export market. That's a lot of jobs lost if America stops buying China's stuff.
Cite: http://www.starmass.com/china_review/imports_exports/china_top_export_market.htm

Now, you say, China has other export markets? If America collapses, we take out Europe, too. Look at that chart and see which is China's BIGGEST export market? You guessed it, Europe.

How dependent is China on exports to the US? More cites. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-09-14/markets/30084784_1_china-s-gdp-chinese-economy-state-owned-enterprises

China's total exports amount to 40% of its GDP, cite: http://www.futureofuschinatrade.com/fact/us-and-china-exports-percentage-gdp-1980-2030

If America's economy collapses China loses 10% of its GDP off the bat and another 10% of its GDP as Europe tumbles. Just so you know, the loss of 10% of GDP is the stuff of depressions.

What do you think happens to Canada who sends 70% of their exports to the US? http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/daily-mix/us-will-be-canadas-top-export-market-in-2040/article2044537/

What will happen to India's job market? What'll happen to Mexico? What will happen to the oil exporting countries when America is unable to buy their oil? Many nations depend on exports to the United States.



And if you think America's economy cannot collapse, consider our unemployment and the Government spending we have to do to support that:

53% of all infants born in America receive WIC, cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wic
38% of Americans pay no income taxes. Cite: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/americans-paying-no-taxes/
50 million Americans are on Medicaid, Cite: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-08-30-1Asafetynet30_ST_N.htm
46 million Americans are on food stamps, Cite: http://www.cbs19.tv/story/16377232/46-million-living-on-food-stamps

Only half of Americans have jobs now. Cite: http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2011-04-13-more-americans-leave-labor-force.htm

The trade deficit inherently devalues the Dollar, and I cite the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to back up my claim: http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/1999/9910.html
America's trade deficits also add to the national debt. Cite: http://industryweek.com/articles/u-s-_free_trade_policy_causes_trade_deficits_federal_debt_25366.aspx?ShowAll=1

This is not sustainable. This is in no way sustainable. Look at Europe and their debt crisis. That debt crisis will be ours soon as well. America's national debt is now 100% of our gross domestic product. Cite: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/04/us-debt-reaches-100-percent-countrys-gdp/

And in case you think America has not sacrificed enough? Half of America is now poor or low income, cite: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/

There's no way you can address much of this so I'll quit here.

[treestar]

155. If the world is dependent on our economy

Which you've hardly proven, that only proves my point. Why should it be? That's pretty unfair to the rest of the world, isn't it?

[Zalatix]

160. So you want to talk about that whole 30% of the world's resources thing, eh?

Apparently you don't care at all about America's poor. You have never said anything about them except that they must continue to suffer. My REAL opinion of your despicable arguments isn't legal to speak on the DU, and THAT frustrates me.

Plus you keep dodging my questions, and now you're into the outright denial phase.

So since you are so totally fixated on that whole 30% of the world's resources thing, let me show you what happens when we outsource American jobs overseas. Let us show, with CITES, how offshoring is destroying both the environment and the lives of the very hallowed foreign poor that you wish to raise up so badly.

First, let's talk about all the pollution that offshoring of American jobs causes overseas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/world/asia/beijing-journal-anger-grows-over-air-pollution-in-china.html
The ceaseless churning of factories and automobile engines in and around Beijing has led to this: hundreds of flights canceled since Sunday because of smog, stores sold out of face masks, and many Chinese complaining on the Internet that officials are failing to level with them about air quality or make any improvements to the environment.

Computer parts are recycled in China, with devastating results for the environment and people who do the recycling work:

http://www.salon.com/2006/04/10/ewaste/

More than 50 percent of our recycled computers are shipped overseas, where their toxic components are polluting poor communities. Meanwhile, U.S. laws are a mess, and industry and Congress are resisting efforts to stem "the effluent of the affluent."

A parade of trucks piled with worn-out computers and electronic equipment pulls away from container ships docked at the port of Taizhou in the Zhejiang Province of southeastern China. A short distance inland, the trucks dump their loads in what looks like an enormous parking lot. Pools of dark oily liquid seep from under the mounds of junked machinery. The equipment comes mostly from the United States, Europe and Japan.

For years, developed countries have been exporting tons of electronic waste to China for inexpensive, labor-intensive recycling and disposal. Since 2000, it’s been illegal to import electronic waste into China for this kind of environmentally unsound recycling. But tons of debris are smuggled in with legitimate imports, corruption is common among local officials, and China’s appetite for scrap is so enormous that the shipments just keep on coming.

http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/collaboration/2007/summer/outsourcing-pollution.shtml
Rising U.S. Trade May Increase Carbon Emissions

A rise in global trade has researchers wondering about the potential impact on future climate policy.

A recent Carnegie Mellon study finds that the United States may be reducing its own carbon emissions by importing goods from countries that are creating even more emissions in the production process than the United States would have originally.

Making a desktop computer in China, for example, can generate up to three times the carbon dioxide emissions as making the same desktop computer in the United States.

^^^ This is especially damning to your argument. I certainly don't a response to this, LOL.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/how-big-deal-outsourced-pollution

How Big A Deal Is Outsourced Pollution?

It's fairly straightforward to measure how much carbon dioxide a given country is emitting within its own borders. Just count the factories and power plants and cars and so forth and tally up all that pollution. But what about outsourced emissions? After all, the United States and Europe consume a whole bunch of goods manufactured overseas, and those emissions usually get chalked up to developing countries like China. So who bears the responsibility here?

It's a dicey question, though the first step is to get a handle on how much carbon pollution actually gets outsourced. And the answer seems to be: quite a bit. A new study by Steven Davis and Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science finds that the United States outsources about 11 percent of its emissions abroad, while Japan outsources nearly 18 percent and European nations outsource anywhere from 20 percent to 50 percent of their emissions—most of it to developing countries. On the flip side, nearly one-quarter of China's emissions, for instance, go into making goods for other countries.

Outsourcing Global Pollution to India - Vandana Shiva

There ya go, more cites for you to ignore or deny.



Oh and I still haven't heard from you why you won't tell America's jobless why they need to keep sacrificing, nor have you explained what the third world will do when America runs out of American jobs to give them. But I have answered your challenge.

[treestar]

157. Took a while to read first set of links

The unemployment rate in China in 2010 is 4.1%.

The first article is from 2009, the height of the rescission.

The second shows the EU imports more from China than the US does.

The third is an opinion piece, showing there are two sides to the question. Doesn't prove China can't become a market - there is one fourth of the planet's population there.

The Fourth has an interesting graph showing that China depends more on exports than the US does.

The fifth contradicts your whole premise; Canada thinks it will continue to have a big US market and may not need China, Brazil, etc., but they are interested.

The US is not going to fall apart. Citing that fact that people use what social safety net there is does not prove that. The US is still at the top and the remaining superpower, etc., I doubt there is worldwide fear - probably third world countries are fearing for themselves, not the US.

[Zalatix]

158. All your arguments are for putting Americans out of work.

And your arguments are totally wrong.

Point by point:

1) China's unemployment in 2010 is 4% because they responded to the loss of 20 million jobs in 2008 with stimulus spending. Regardless, do YOU think that losing 20 million jobs is okay in any nation?

2) The second cite shows exactly what I wrote: the US is China's second biggest export market, at around 20%. That amounts to 10% of China's GDP.

3) The third "opinion" piece is well founded. And even if China becomes a market, American workers are locked out of jobs to serve that market. But Chinese workers have free reign to take American jobs. Do you not see the disconnect there?

4) The fourth cite absolutely supports my claim. Like all the others, but apparently even you couldn't spin it away.

5) The fifth does NOT contradict my premise. It shows that 70% of Canada's exports go here. What Canada THINKS it can continue to do, is irrelevant. If the US economy collapses that 70% will go away.

6) You claim the US economy will not collapse? Really? Name one economy that has ever survived long with a TRILLION dollar deficit year in and year out. ONE. Ask Europe how well its Euro currency is doing with all that debt. Go ahead, ask them.


You continue to argue in favor of putting Americans out of work. I am getting sick and tired of you refusing to address the sheer insensitivity of your arguments toward your own fellow citizens.

Why are you so incredibly frightened to tell America's jobless your argument that they should remain jobless to support the third world? I'm NOT going to let you get away with this. I will hound you with this every time you come into this thread.

Tariffs, now.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

166. "We already have the highest lifestyle in the world"

Not anymore.

The Scandinavian countries look pretty darn good right now. No slums, excellent infrastructure, universal health care, excellent schools, the highest per capita contributions to humanitarian aid, a minimum of four weeks' vacation by law, generous old age pensions.

[treestar]

181. OK, but we are still first world

And have used so much more of the world's resources, proportionally.

[JDPriestly]

73. I'm advocating that we should have free trade only with those countries

that enforce strict labor and environmental standards.

And I am advocating that profits enjoyed from "free" trade be distributed not just to the guys at the top of the free trade pyramid but to those whose jobs are displaced, those whose land is lost, those whose lives are turned upside down dud to the changes.

As for the industrial revolution, let's don't repeat the mistakes we made over a hundred years ago. Let's don't pollute and destroy and ruin the fabric of our society so that a small percentage of us can reap huge profits, buy lots and feel more powerful than everyone else. And that is what "free" trade has meant. It may be "free" for the rich and influential, but it is costing the rest of us a lot, especially when it comes to the quality of our lives. And those paying the highest price are in the countries being exploited like El Salvador, Japan, China, Korea, etc.

Moderation in all things is the best policy.

[Zalatix]

89. A TRADE war? We're already in a trade war, started by China and other nations.

China already has tariffs against us, and they and other countries peg their currencies to ours.

[fascisthunter]

40. you do that... and drop the progressive moniker

all you are doing is espousing free market garbage while trying to disguise it as something moral. It isn't... but it was a bit of a disgusting attempt on your part.

[DCBob]

44. What's disgusting are your insults...

and you apparent total lack of concern for those in the rest of the world who live at a much lower standard of living than we do here.

[fascisthunter]

49. No... your disgusting insult is that we as Progressives should curtail American standards of living

for free traders who hoard the profits off the backs of cheap labor. As if you had to make any sacrifices yourself. You want to lower your standards for people around the world, go for it, but never pretend it is progressive, because it is the exact opposite. Your mentality is what is forcing americans to adjust to something you would never have the gaul to ask someone personally, face to face. How about you start. Your free market crap is selfishly disguised by talking points. Let me ask you something... will you be sacrificing anything for this grand experiment, because I know people who have had to personally and they are in a world of trouble right now. For you to claim what you have, you have to be completely ignorant and or apathetic, so spare us the whole gumbaya BS.!

[DCBob]

54. I never said that.

I said we as progressives should show concern for the less fortunate in the world. What your beef with that?

[fascisthunter]

55. sure... good bye!

being honest is definitely not your strong suit.

[Zalatix]

90. What about OUR working class? What about us? Why should we go unemployed for this?

fascisthunter is right... you don't care a whit about your own country.

[DCBob]

97. We shouldn't. If trade policy is done correctly and fairly is should benefit both sides.

If the end result is we lose jobs and they gain then of course that is unacceptable. BTW, I care deeply about this country but I also care about the world. We are all fellow travelers on this planet.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

84. Well said.

[Zalatix]

16. Dear free traders, here are more Americans losing jobs to make the rest of the world a better place.

Another bunch of jobs being outsourced:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002121604

Remember, folks, you're losing your jobs so the poor in other nations can live better. Suffer with pride, citizens of the world!

[wandy]

24. You see we are makeing their lives better. Just think about those happy people at Foxcon.

They had to put a fence around the roof of the building to keep the happy workers from leaping off it out of shere joy.
Enjoy you're Ipod.

[TheKentuckian]

78. It is interesting how folks paint essentially slavery as altruistic and "progressive"

Worse than some traditions of slavery because the slave has to figure out how to house and feed themselves on pennies of day labor wages.

Jumping up on some high horse of virtue is laughable because what is behind it is robbing people of their land, poisoning their habitat, and exploiting the hell out of their labor to line pockets and cheap crap.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

174. You know, when ever a "centrist" or right-winger says that a certain policy will

"benefit the poor," I immediately get suspicious.

School vouchers, dismantling Social Security, "free" trade, they're all supposed to be good things because the existing system "harms the poor." Yeah, right.

[Zalatix]

19. Here are three more Americans that free traders should speak to

Tell them that they should live like this so the poor in other nations can do better:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/poverty-20_b_1190481.html?ref=politics

[Skidmore]

26. That's a silk stalking horse...

Help the 3rd world, my tush. Lower the standards here so that profit margins are increased exponentially for the big boys. There is nothing altruistic about free traders.

[JDPriestly]

30. And, let's see a few free traders donate all their money to projects in

developing countries and then go on food stamps.

Free traders love asking other people to sacrifice so that folks in foreign countries can have sub-minimum-wage jobs, but the free traders themselves do not want to take the price for the free trade. Free traders want to keep their economic advantages and deprive other Americans of a living wage.

Free trade is a rationalization for greed, not the way to a better world.

[Populist_Prole]

51. You nailed it exactly.

Let's see them throw themselves under the bus just to prove how great the theory of "free trade" is. But no, the world needs them. As Madam Yes protested: "Im too important to be captured!!"

[bvar22]

31. One can NOT be FOR "Free Trade" and Pro-LABOR at the same time.

Those positions ARE Mutually Exclusive.

Does anyone remember what Candidate Obama and Candidate Hillary Clinton said about Free Trade when they were trying to get elected in 2008?




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[pampango]

62. Tell that to the Germans. n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

85. If anyone has forgotten, maybe one of them will remind us by repeating what they said.

Fool me once, ...

[PETRUS]

32. What Skidmore says.

Ignore any rhetoric about free trade improving things for people in the "third world." The goal of these trade agreements is to boost profits for the 1%. And it's only called "free" trade for marketing (Orwellian) purposes. The agreements are full of protections for certain industries, particularly finance, energy (oil), pharmaceuticals, and defense. Actual free trade might be slightly more beneficial. Better yet, we could structure trade and immigration agreements with other nations that actually do improve conditions for everyday people here and abroad.

[Nye Bevan]

37. Paul Krugman supports free trade.

I guess you're not a fan.

[fascisthunter]

41. Oh no.... you got that poster!

really... did you hope people would change their minds on this issue by stating a well known economists name on this thread as being for it? Did you ever stop and think that people who like the man's views are not fanatics or a cult to a personality. Must be mind blowing for you once you realize the world and it's people are not so black and white. You are fun.

[DCBob]

47. Doesnt Krugman's opinion mean anything to you on this issue?

Would you insult him like you insulted me... implying he is a fake progressive?

[fascisthunter]

52. no it doesn't.... his point of view on this ISN'T progressive... it is flawed

try harder to make yourself the victim while promoting an agenda that victimizes the majority of americans so the wealthy can enrich themselves more. SOund progressive to you? It isn't!

[DCBob]

56. sure genius..

ciao.

[Zalatix]

92. Krugman has begun to change his mind on outsourcing, so you're wrong on this, too.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2010/03/5-best-monday-columns/25217/

[DCBob]

96. from your linked article..

Krugman:

"Some still argue that we must reason gently with China, not confront it. But we’ve been reasoning with China for years, as its surplus ballooned, and gotten nowhere...In 1971 the United States dealt with a similar but much less severe problem of foreign undervaluation by imposing a temporary 10 percent surcharge on imports, which was removed a few months later after Germany, Japan and other nations raised the dollar value of their currencies. At this point, it’s hard to see China changing its policies unless faced with the threat of similar action — except that this time the surcharge would have to be much larger, say 25 percent."

====

I think he is simply advocating a tougher trade policy with China not elimimating free trade or outsourcing... which I also agree with.

[Zalatix]

113. A 25% tariff would be far more than what we've done so far.

[Zalatix]

91. Hey fascisthunter, Krugman has started to turn away from defending free trade.

He is seeing the light.

The NY Times took his article offline but here are some excerpts of Krugman's changing views on outsourcing.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2010/03/5-best-monday-columns/25217/

[Populist_Prole]

50. Not anymore!

He used to be pro 3rd-world sweatshop, claiming it was relative prosperity for those people, and that their standards of living would eventually rise, and in the long run, would even out with us. Finally saw what Keynes always knew: In the long run, we're all dead. In the short run, the plutocrats fattened their bottom lines though.

[bvar22]

64. Paul Krugman supports free trade?... NOT

At one time, he approved of the concept of "Free Trade" as it was depicted in the glossy marketing brochures.
He has taken a more Reality Based approach since then.

Google "Krugman & Free Trade" to catch up with the rest of us,
or simply view these links.

NYT's Krugman Starting to Abandon Free Trade Theory for Reality
http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=3568


Krugman renounces free trade, neoliberal economics and financialization
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/curtis_ellis/2008/12/krugman-renounces-free-trade-n.php



[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Nye Bevan]

66. "Krugman's views on free trade have provoked considerable ire from the anti-globalism movement".

"He once famously quipped that, "If there were an Economist's Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."[144][145]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman#Free_trade

The blog that you cite claims that Krugman has "renounced" free trade, but he does this nowhere in his article that the blog cites. In the article he actually advocates "selling more to other countries" which is obviously not what would happen under Smoot-Hawley 2, which many here seem to want.

Like almost all mainstream economists, Krugman is still very much a free-trader.

[Elwood P Dowd]

72. No one here is advocating Smoot-Hawley.

Where do people like you come up with such nonsense.

As for so called "mainstream economists", most of them have no fucking clue what's happening to working people in the real world as a result of their support for anything that has the word "Free Trade" attached to it. NAFTA, GATT/WTO, CAFTA, and all the other so called "Free Trade" agreements these clowns support are not even real "Free Trade". They are nothing more than outsourcing/investment scams using the term "Free Trade", and they are written by Wall Street and Corporate America to line their own pockets. The bought and paid for Washington politicians rubber stamp this shit, and now working people are paying the price.

As for Smoot-Hawley, it had little effect on The Great Depression. International trade was only about 4% of our GDP when it passed in 1930. That fell to about 2% later, but then all trade was decreasing because people didn't have any fucking money. Also, trade in products not even covered under Smoot-Hawley was falling for the same reason. When economist says Smoot-Hawley caused the The Great Depression or had this massive impact on it, that is when I know that economist is bought and paid for just like the Washington politicians that forced this shit upon us.

[Zalatix]

129. Thank you for dispelling the Smoot-Hawley myth!

[Zalatix]

125. Krugman called for a 25% tariff on China. I posted the cite already. That's NOT free trade.

There's no way you can spin that as a free trade point of view.

Krugman has turned a corner on this issue, he is seeing the light.

[Nye Bevan]

135. Has he proposed exiting NAFTA?

I didn't think so.

[fascisthunter]

46. Free Traders are never the Ones lowering their own Standards of living for the World

so when they claim we should, they are really the exception and that to me is disgustingly selfish and arrogant. They should be the first to do the sacrificing, lead by example and then maybe I will take them seriously, until then, it's just free market talking points with no real moral consideration behind it. Enough with the bullshit! Some of us live with those who are making the sacrifices for their grand dream of the world... only fools could fall for such a thing. Try living with those who do make sacrifices, although keep in mind that they are being forced to accept their roles, and not doing so voluntarily.

[Populist_Prole]

53. The dirty little secret you NEVER hear uttered by the media or pols. n/t

[Elwood P Dowd]

63. What a total pile of BS!

We've lost millions of jobs and trillion of dollars in trade deficits because of insane free trade policies you support. Millions of American workers have fallen from middle class to poverty thanks your free trade crap, and African-Americans have been hit just as hard or harder.
Attaching the KKK to our concerns is crazy!

[girl gone mad]

70. When you have to resort to such blatantly stupid ad hominem..

you've lost the ideological debate.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

86. No, because that's an ad hominem argument. But, if that is their position, even a broken clock

can be right twice a day.

[LongTomH]

65. Thanks for posting this!

This is the first DU3 post I've shared to Facebook - to my wall and to the Greater Kansas City Democracy for America Group.

[Zalatix]

114. Many thanks LongTomH!

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. I have a solution to this that rarely comes in

They want to flatten wages by playing at the international level...well, let's start with the Nafta zone...imagine if you will taking organized labor across all three countries and demanding a wage scale based in Canadian dollars (I am willing to compromise) with Canadian single payer access.

If teamsters in Los Angeles, Colima and Vancouver are paid the same, and have the same benefits...

It's time to realize this horse is out of the barn, so it's time for labor to finally organize across borders, which in my opinion is the next frontier in labor struggle.

[pampango]

75. Repubs would hate that idea (the mythical North American Union is a mainstay of bircher fears).

Your solution would, of course, cause the right to have a stroke. But enabling "labor to finally organize across borders" and providing a common health care system (Canadian ) would involve a lessening of national sovereignty that would not sit well with many DU'ers, either.

With Mexico's population (110 million) representing about a quarter of North America, the per capita income for the continent would be about $38,500 which is higher than the EU's $31,000. If we saw the adoption of common labor laws, health care systems and other progressive policies (as you suggest) like the EU, yours might be a good solution.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. Alas it is in the rarely enforced side agreements of nafta

So legally the basis for this is there.

[white_wolf]

74. Free Trade doesn't help the Third World or First World.

It reduces people in the Third World to virtual slave labor and forces workers in the First World to take pay and benefit cuts in order to compete. We need to start to structuring trade agreements to benefit the First and Third world people and not just the top rich. I don't know how we would structure those, but I'm sure it can be done.

[AdHocSolver]

87. There is NO "free trade". World trade is controlled by a cabal of multinational corporations.

The mechanisms used by corporations to control trade include, but are not limited to, NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank, the Federal Reserve, and similar organizations and international agreements.

so-called "free trade" requires that there be competition in the market place. The multinational corporations don't compete. They collude.

The corporations willing accomplices include people who spend money lavishly on overpriced imported junk, such as overpriced foreign made designer clothes, energy wasting cars, SUV's, etc., as well as "invest" in the "stock market" to boost corporate share prices whenever the corporations send jobs to China or India.

You want to help overseas workers? Put your money where your mouth is: stop increasing profits to the multinational corporations whenever they find new ways to squeeze foreign workers.

[Hippo_Tron]

117. Regarding foreign made designer clothes

Are you referring to clothes that are designed by a foreign company. Or clothes that are physically made overseas? If I had the means, I'd hop on a plane to Italy and find myself a nice mom and pop tailor there. American tailors are meh as is all of the big name designer stuff sold in this country (regardless of the country it was designed in).

[Sirveri]

93. Mexico is a great circular thing since they love to bitch about immigrants.

Well gee, maybe if they could actually get a fair price for the corn that they used to grow they wouldn't all have abandoned the fields in Mexico to come north. But apparently it's somehow better to undercut them with our insanely cheap products and put all those farmers out of work.

[Spider Jerusalem]

95. Here's an uncomfortable question for you

why should Americans, who constitute 5% of the global population, continue to consume 25% of global energy and nearly 30% of total resources? Why should millions of people in India and Africa and China and South America live without running water and electricity on the equivalent of about US$1 a day just because Americans are greedy and lazy and selfish and have lifestyles predicated on driving everywhere, even if it's just a half a mile away; on wasteful consumption of disposable consumer goods; on a degree of comfort that's quite literally unimaginable to most of the world...really, you know, it's quite inevitable that a rising standard of living in other countries will lead to a declining standard of living in the US, because those other countries are competing on the global market for the same resources the US is (let's not forget that the US imports most of its oil and quite a significant amount of other raw materials and finished goods). And all of this really avoids the basic problem which is that the vaunted American way of life was never sustainable; the whole thing was predicated on cheap oil, and with increasing market competition and production having apparently peaked, that's a thing of the past.

[DCBob]

98. +1

The standard of living for the average American is outrageous compared to the vast majority of the world.

[Douglas Carpenter]

99. that would all be a valid point if "globalization" was improving the quality of life in the third

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 01:59 PM - Edit history (1)

world. But for the vast majority of people in the developing world -there is simply no evidence that this is the case. Even the world of "free market" apologist have had to acknowledge that in fact the new economic stresses caused by globalization – does in fact drive the rural peasantry off their land - and create an inflationary spiral on basic commodities and necessities that leaves the vast majority in greater economic desperation than ever while collapsing the traditional economies of small farmers and small businesses. Capital’s race to the bottom in its endless search for cheaper and cheaper labor was simply not satisfied with $3.00 per hour in Mexico or the Marianas when they could get $3.00 per day in the Philippines. But that was not good enough when you have hundreds of millions of Chinese willing to work for $1.50 per day and hundreds of millions more waiting in line desperately wanting such jobs.
What one will see very quickly in any visit to the third world is that, yes there is a new commercial class that is doing quite well. It is very possible that as much as 10% or perhaps even 15% of the population is benefiting while the majority are simply not part of this new economy and have little or no prospect of ever being a part of it – as the inflationary spiral along with the internal dislocation and the collapse of their own domestic economy of small farmers and small cottage businesses which are virtually wiped out over night. Ultimately globalization is simply not sustainable in the long run – as increased energy cost will simply make transporting goods halfway around the world prohibitive and localization will be imposed by necessity.

[DCBob]

100. In some cases it clearly is.

The rising middle classes of China and India are very good examples. Of course not all have benefited but many who would still be living in poverty are now living a relatively properous life being able to own a home and car and able to travel. That would not have happened without globalization. Of course there is a negative side to it all but its dishonest to dismiss the benefits.

[Douglas Carpenter]

102. it is dishonest to represent the majority as benefiting when that is clearly not the case

I agree that there is a percentage that does indeed benefit. And to be fair – not only the richest and most powerful – there is in fact a new commercial class – but they live in a very different world than the vast majority who will never be part of this new economy. I was just in Manila last week and - oh yes there are more chic shops, luxury goods and American style chain restaurants than ever before. Compared to my first trip in 1994 it is really quite staggering. But at the cost of massive dislocation and an inflationary spiral that has the overwhelming majority living in greater desperation than ever. Virtually overnight we are seeing the world of the small farmer and small domestic manufacturer and retailer swallowed up in the tide of globalization and the ordinary person unable to keep pace with speculation driven inflation.

[DCBob]

103. Funny, I was just in the Philippines also.

I have travelled there several times in the past few years.. mostly in Cebu which is also showing tremendous signs of improvement. I think most of it is tourism related but there is also a growing international service and manufacturing business.. ie. call centers, software support/development, electronics manufacturing etc. These new businesses are empolying tens of thousands and they would not exist without globalization.

[Douglas Carpenter]

104. I would suggest taking a trip off the beaten path a little bit and away from the tourist belt

For one thing in the Philippines I believe the minimum wage is currently 180 pesos or $4.18 per day - although it may have gone up to as much as $5.00 per day recently. However most manufacturers will domestically outsource to small time operators who will hire workers at about half that. So most of the jobs being created are paying no more than $5.00 to $6.00 per day - many are paying much less. At the same time - domestic necessities have skyrocketed in price. A kilo of rice will cost roughly a day’s wage if one is lucky enough to be working for an operation that actually observes the official minimum wage. The cost of a single-room cramped third world level apartment will run about 5000 pesos per month - which would be about 23 days wages for an average worker – again an average worker who is fortunate enough to be working in a job that actually pays the official minimum wage. I should also mention that in addition to domestic outsourcing to sub-minimum wage operations - most - in fact almost all regular jobs working for international service or manufacturing operations - are hired on a six month contract. That way the employer can avoid paying more in benefits. When that six month period is up - in the vast majority of cases - they will be out of work again - usually for quite some time. The really good paying jobs working for international enterprises - like the ones that pay a staggering fortune of 10,000 to 15,000 pesos per month ($233 to $349) will be few and far between a limited to only the most fortunate university graduates. 70% of Filipinos never finish more that one or two years of high school - much less go on to university. But for the fortunate few who do finish university and do find such employment - that income would barely be enough to rent a small but reasonably modern (by local standards) apartment. For the vast majority such things are way beyond their reach.

Yes there is a percentage doing better - no doubt about it. But at the cost of a far more stressed society for the overwhelming majority. Ask almost any ordinary Filipino - they will tell you the same thing.

[DCBob]

105. I certainly do get off the beaten path.. I have relatives in the province far from any major city.

They of course are relatively poor and see no direct benefit from globalization. Yes, the cost of food and other necessities have risen recently. Its hard to say if globalization is the blame for that. The Philippines has been poor for a long time.. long before globalization. Many blame Marcos who set the country backwards during his time as President. Others blame overpopulation. Whatever the reason there is new economic growth and renewed optimism in many parts of the Philippines that could spread. I cant see how anything would be any better if globalization suddenly stopped.

[DCBob]

106. Actually call center workers in the Phlippines make about $500 / month.

Not much from our standards but decent money there.

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. most of those jobs would be for only 6 months, would they not?

And wouldn't they be limited only to very exceptional English speaking university graduates? - needless to say a very small percentage of the population of a country where 70% never finish high school. No, I wouldn't say that globalization caused the poverty. I just don't see any evidence that it is relieving the economic stress and a lot of evidence that it is doing the opposite. I actually had my own experience back about 15 years ago when I was persuaded to finance a garment operation in Antipolo that outsourced to a manufacturer in Pasay. What became clear to me after two years of attempting to just break even - is that in spite of investing thousands of dollars and my friends working 130 hours per week and hiring about 20 workers - it was simply not possible to make a sustainable profit without engaging in the most exploitive of practices – like one person over in Antipolo City who essentially hired bonded labor from some impoverish village in the Visayas. Now even the central manufacturer in Pasay has shut down because Woolworth's could fill their orders a lot cheaper from an operator out of China. This is the natural result of the race to the bottom. What was once manufactured in the Northeast of the United States moved to the Southern states of the U.S. and then across the border to the border towns of Mexico and then to operations in countries like the Philippines and then to the rural provinces of China. A search for the cheapest labor is not going to be content very long before it moves on to even cheaper pastures.

[DCBob]

109. Yes, I think thats correct but from what I understand there are always new contracts.

Also, I think there is a middle man who hires the workers as employees then "outsources" them to the companies wanting to hire call center workers something like an employment agency here. So most seem to have "permanent" jobs.

No doubt its a tough business environment there. The elite and insiders have the upper hand just like any developing country. I wouldnt even attempt to start a business there without a local partner who knew the ropes.

I do agree the race to the bottom to find the cheapest labor is the biggest negative aspect of globalization. I dont know the solution to that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

167. While there is a "rising middle class" in China and India, the poor are worse off than ever

because the "rising middle class," able to pay more for everything, has encouraged merchants to raise prices. The poor in China and India are having a harder time affording necessities such as rice and vegetables.

When China "liberalized," it also lost its social safety net. Now people have to pay for school and medical care, which they didn't before.

You need to look more closely at China. Its trade policies have been great for some, devastating for others.

[Zalatix]

168. Interesting perspective. I haven't heard of those issues.

Seems we're making life better for them every day by outsourcing!

[DCBob]

177. Yes, that is true also in the Philippines. Prices of almost everything are going up.

Clearly it benefits some while hurting others.. especially the poor. I dont know the answer to that but I dont think the answer is to keep everyone poor.

[Zalatix]

180. Then what do you have to say about this?

America's rich corporate elite is making no sacrifices at all to help the third world.
But America's working class is.

[DCBob]

183. Most of America's rich corporate elite are greedy bastards.

[Zalatix]

184. And despite that you feel we should keep sending jobs overseas?

[DCBob]

185. Yes, if there are proper controls and regulations in place.

[Zalatix]

186. Um, there's no proper way to send American jobs out of the country. None. Zero. Nada.

[DCBob]

187. That's an absurd statement.

There is no turning back on globalization. It's like trying to undo the discovery of the atomic bomb. We have to live it so lets find a way to control it.

[Zalatix]

188. Globalization will collapse under the weight of its own absurdity.

There's only so far it can go by sucking jobs out of this country.

We can stop it now or let it stop itself with a financial collapse.

Fact: trade deficits devalue the dollar. You cannot deny this.
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/1999/9910.html

Fact: trade deficits add to the national debt. You cannot deny this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/americas-trade-deficit-is_b_823785.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

119. I suspect the growing middle classes of China and India would probably disagree with you

and the long-term future of globalisation is pretty much doomed yes, because of peak oil; but, at the same time, so is the future of the American standard of living which is completely unsustainable.

[Douglas Carpenter]

126. The vast majority of Indians and Chinese are not participating in it except as victims of

displacement and ever spiraling inflation. The loss of a sustainable fossil fuel option pretty much dooms both the development in the third world and the western lifestyle or at least will force both into total and absolute reconfiguration.

[Zalatix]

128. you have no answer for these facts

1) the slavery that goes on in China to produce imported goods.
http://slaveryfootprint.org

2) the enormous amount of pollution generated around the world in unregulated factories, to produce the goods you buy. These factories aren't held to the same emission standards that we have in America,

3) when our economy collapses, who will support the world's poor then?

[Spider Jerusalem]

130. What exactly has that got to do with the topic at hand?

Oh, that's right, nothing. It's a red herring. The fact remains that even if only 5% of the population of China and India is benefiting economically? That's a hundred million people. It's equal to US consumption being increased by a third. Which is pretty unsustainable as there isn't enough to go around already. Hence the decline of living standards for some Americans (and for that matter Europeans).

And I haven't said anything about the amount of pollution because it's also not part of the topic at hand, it's totally extraneous and unrelated except in a cause-and-effect manner. Now tell me how you'd propose to re-industrialise the US while maintaining a wasteful standard of living given higher unit production costs and the necessity of importing resources?

And I doubt the US economy is going to "collapse". There's going to be a period of adjustment to new realities that's not going to be comfortable for a lot of people...but it won't be a collapse, either. (And again you haven't really come up with a good reason why 5% of the global population should be entitled to a third of the resources.)

[Zalatix]

133. It has everything to do with the topic at hand and yes, you absolutely do know that.

1) the slavery that goes on in China to produce imported goods.
http://slaveryfootprint.org

You absolutely do know that this was in the OP. It is a part of the topic at hand. You are posting a response made on a computer that was partially made with slave labor. And child labor, too.

2) the enormous amount of pollution generated around the world in unregulated factories, to produce the goods you buy. These factories aren't held to the same emission standards that we have in America

You absolutely do know that this was in the OP. It is a part of the topic at hand.

3) when our economy collapses, who will support the world's poor then?

You think this economy cannot collapse? For one, this shows you do not understand the link between the trade deficit and the national debt. A trade deficit contributes to the national debt. This is a fact. Cite: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2009/03/why-is-the-trade-deficit-impor.html

You think an exploding national debt cannot lead to a collapse? Look at Europe and say that, I dare you.

And you think that when our economy merely stumbles, the poor in other countries don't suffer? Well, allow me to explain something to you about history. In 2008 when America's economy suffered, 20 million Chinese lost their jobs. And I have a cite for this, too!
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/02/20-million-migrant-worker-jobs-lost-in.html

America's currency is also devaluing because of our trade deficit. And I have a cite for this, by the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank:
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activities/drecon/1999/9910.html


You may now try to counter me with cites of your own. Go ahead.

But in reality you absolutely do know that if America continues to have the problems we're having, the poor will suffer worldwide. I gave you plenty of cited proof of that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

136. Welcome to globalisation

what happens in one country affects another. This is something that has been going on for a while; I'm realist enough to know that as much as a lot of people may like to, we won't be turning back the clock unless and until there's severe disruption in fuel supply or a spike in oil prices up to 2008 levels or beyond. Unfortunately it's going to take a severe crisis of capitalism for there to be a serious rethinking of the way things are done; probably more than one since the idiots running things didn't quite get the message and seem to think things will be A-OK as long as we can get back to business as usual...which isn't really on the cards; the new business as usual is going to be cyclic recession and depression and oil price shocks and resource scarcity, more likely than not. Which is going to be bad for everyone but at the same time...the odds are that people in developing countries who are far less dependent upon oil will be hurt far less than Americans or Europeans.

[Zalatix]

138. Food crises, pollution, slave labor & child labor are acceptable because "welcome to globalization"?

By supporting foreign outsourcing you are perpetuating these problems. Most horribly the pollution in foreign outsourced factories is making it so that the poor in those countries will die of a multitude of industrial pollution-related illnesses. They're going to be in a much worse position than before we put factories there.

And about food crises: people in Mexico are seeing the cost of food soar because of NAFTA. Cite: http://www.eurasiareview.com/21102011-nafta-is-starving-mexico-oped/

And about oil? Americans and Europeans deserve a kick in the rear for their oil dependency. Maybe this will force us to look at alternative fuels. And it will reduce our carbon footprint even more.

The other problem with your argument is, people in developing countries will be thrown back in poverty when their exports disappear, just like 20 million Chinese back in 2008 - only this time those jobs will be lost for decades, not months. All because of globalization.

And if you still believe globalization doesn't lead to forced labor and slavery? Here ya go.
http://slaveryfootprint.org

PS: I'm still waiting for cites to back up your argument.

[Spider Jerusalem]

141. Reading comprehension failure

I've never said I support foreign outsourcing.

[Zalatix]

143. Reading comprehension failure.... where, again?

Your own words: "Welcome to globalisation"

You write as if America is helpless to do anything about globalization. Globalization and foreign outsourcing are the same thing.

[high density]

101. We are asked to decline our standard of living so the 1% can get more

That's the bottom line. We aren't declining our standard of living to improve the conditions for the poor in India or Africa.

[Spider Jerusalem]

120. That's facile and nonsensical honestly

and shows a pretty limited understanding of the interconnected nature of global economics. Something like oil production for instance is limited, there's only so much of it; increased demand from China and India drives up prices for everyone else, access to oil as an energy source has done a lot economically for those countries yet at the same time higher global market prices lead to a decline in the American standard of living which is predicated on cheap oil. For a point of comparison, the Chinese auto industry now builds more vehicles than the US, and India built 3.7 million cars last year...someone is buying them.

[Zalatix]

123. The top 1-5% of China and India are buying cars - made by slaves and high pollution

Please look at this before you go on.
http://slaveryfootprint.org/#where_do_you_live

[Zalatix]

127. There is a reason why you won't respond to this... my response is even MORE uncomfortable.

1) Why don't you tell that to America's poor? Tell them that they're homeless or going hungry but that's okay, they're using 30% of the world's resources!

2) Have you checked your slavery footprint lately? A lot of those poor Africans and Chinese are being forced into slave labor to provide you your imported goods.
http://slaveryfootprint.org/#where_do_you_live

3) By outsourcing our production overseas, we have increased global pollution. Factories in China pollute far more heavily than factories in the US, because they lack the pollution controls that we have. In short, outsourcing is poisoning the poor people of other nations.

Have you visited Linfeng, China lately?

I already know why this post will go unanswered. Because free traders have no counter arguments.

[Spider Jerusalem]

131. You seem to make a lot of stupid assumptions.

America generally uses 30% of global resources while accounting for 5% of population; the poor in America are frankly probably better off than in India, in China, in Africa, in Brazil. The problem of poverty and homelessness in America is a problem of political failure and of allocation of existing resources; it's entirely possible to see to it that no-one in the US goes hungry or without a roof over his head. You can't really say the same thing for most of the world.

You also seem to make some unfounded assumptions regarding my consumption habits; the only things I buy that are manufactured in China are the ones where I really have no choice or alternative. I make a point of buying fair-trade coffee and tea and locally-farmed meat and produce. And most of the consumer goods I do buy are manufactured in Europe and not China--I'm in the UK and thanks to, yes, EU free trade agreements, European-made consumer goods of excellent quality are available at competitive prices.

[Zalatix]

132. You seem to give a lot of cowardly non-answers.

1) Why don't you tell that to America's poor? You did not answer this at all. You know exactly why you won't do this - you'll only galvanize the people of this country, and perhaps even your own country against your cause.

2) Speaking of slavery footprints: you posted your non-answer using a computer that is in part made with slave labor. That is a fact. Whether you had a choice about it or not, is immaterial. My response is that computers should be made in Western countries where slavery is illegal. What's your answer?

3) By outsourcing our production overseas, we have increased global pollution. Factories in China pollute far more heavily than factories in the US, because they lack the pollution controls that we have. In short, outsourcing is poisoning the poor people of other nations. You did not even address this.

[Spider Jerusalem]

134. Stupid assumptions, again

I'm an American citizen; my wife is British. And I have no "cause". Pull your head out of your arse.

Point 2, not necessarily a "fact"; slave labour is unpaid. If it was made using parts manufactured in Taiwan or Malaysia with workers paid significantly less than Western workers? It's not "slavery" per se, it's not ideal and I'd certainly rather it were not the case (note my mention of "only when I have no choice&quot .

Your third point is also pretty narrow and blinkered. Like it or not, significant resource use and environmental destruction is the cost of the American way of life. And CO2 emissions from Chinese factories burning huge amounts of coal? That's bad for everyone, not just China. Part of the answer would lie in curbing American consumerism, but then you seem to think that the American way of life is just fine and it's outsourcing that's the problem.

[Zalatix]

137. Cowardly non-answers, again

1) You refuse to explain why you won't make your arguments to the poor people of America, what with you being an American citizen and all, that's pretty relevant. Tell them that they're homeless or going hungry but that's okay, since as you said they're using 30% of the world's resources! Did you or did you not say that? I can cite you if you wish to deny this.

2) I'm speaking of slave labor, as in forced and unpaid labor. Stop dodging. It's employed in practically every sector in China, including the manufacturing of the computer you use to post.

3) My point about pollution is not blinkered, it is factual. Factories in the United States are held to emissions controls. This is not true of factories in China. I can back that up with cites galore - what do you have to counter me with?
http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/collaboration/2007/summer/outsourcing-pollution.shtml
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/how-big-deal-outsourced-pollution

Fact: we are doing more damage to the world's environment by putting factories in China than by keeping them here.

[Spider Jerusalem]

140. I said America is using 30% of the world's resources. Which it is.

Whether the poor of America are included in that is kind of irrelevant to the larger point. The laziness and greed and selfishness of the typical American who won't walk anywhere he can drive, who buys a house larger than he needs that has to be heated in summer and cooled in winter, etc etc, is very much part of the problem; and American consumerism is also very much part of the problem, American companies wouldn't be using Chinese labour to make things for pennies that they can turn around and sell for hundreds of dollars (like iPhones for instance) if America didn't provide them with a market. But again, you think that the American standard of living is okay and should be defended? Justify that defence. Can you?

And I'm speaking of low-paid by Western standards but not forced labour (I assembled my PC myself and checked the components. Manufactured in Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, not China.)

And your point about pollution is indeed rather blinkered because of your defence of the US standard of living; what would total US CO2 emissions be if all US consumption were manufactured domestically? Considerably higher. And yes, the US has emissions standards; what percentage of factories and coal-fired power stations are in compliance with those standards? The answer is "less than you think".

[Zalatix]

145. Your argument has so many errors, where to start! And can you back up anything with cites? Anything?

1) The poor are not buying large houses, or any houses at all. They're not driving large cars, or any of that other stuff you mentioned. They're just looking for a job and globalization has locked vast swaths of the American working class out of the global job market while throwing the doors open to American jobs leaving the country.

And that is where you are completely missing the point. You will never get the support of the poor or working class with arguments like that. They'll fight you all the way to hell. That is, if you were to actually take your case to them. Which I know you will not do.

Once again I demand that you explain why you won't make your arguments to the poor people of America, what with you being an American citizen and all, that it doesn't matter that they're homeless or going hungry because they're using 30% of the world's resources. That is your argument. You are being grossly insensitive.

2) Go check slaveryfootprint.org - your computer components have a slavery footprint. Do you have TVs? They have a footprint, too.

3) My point about pollution is perfectly accurate. American factories don't pollute as much as their counterparts in China. Go look at our air quality versus China's.

America doesn't even rank in the top 10 polluted cities in the world. Cite:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1661031_1661028_1661016,00.html

[Lydia Leftcoast]

170. We're supposed to be glad because our poor are "better off" than those in India?

I'm sure that's a great comfort to our poor people who are considered "too expensive" as workers and yet have to pay American prices for basic necessities.

[Zalatix]

171. You obviously refused to drink the kool-aid.

Bad global citizen, bad!!!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

173. I have actual experience working blue collar jobs and volunteering in programs

for the poor.

It's a real different experience than being an affluent suburbanite who gets a degree in economics at a top-tier university, interns at a major corporation, and then goes to work for a corporate "think" tank.

[Zalatix]

175. That's what I want to get into more of... community organizing to create jobs, to be specific.

[ProSense]

108. The

"Since Free Traders believe that America should lower its standard of living to help the third world"

...corruption of trade policy is a function of corporate influence in government and a lack of enforcement. I don't think that is what those who advocate trade believe.

FDR’s Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade

by David Woolner

<...>

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

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

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

<...>

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

- more -

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

[mdmc]

110. If I could give up my iphone to pull a family out of poverty, I would

Jesus would want me to..

[Zalatix]

139. It's called foreign aid.

Instead of giving away American jobs, we should keep our jobs here and deliver tons of foreign aid.

Third world nations should be building products for themselves, not to drain us dry.

[mdmc]

142. I'm a one worlder myself, but I have nothing against protecting the economy

[Zalatix]

144. I'm not a one-worlder. I don't want China having a vote on my country's reproductive rights.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[varelse]

121. Thank you

for putting this together

[Zalatix]

124. These homeless students are making sacrifices to help the poor in other nations...

Remember folks, more Americans with jobs means people starve in China. According to the Free Traders.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/chicago-public-schools-reports-increase-in-homeless-students/article_9e931d7a-3a50-11e1-8174-001871e3ce6c.html

Chicago Public Schools reports increase in homeless students

CHICAGO -- Officials with Chicago Public Schools say the number of homeless students has increased compared with last year.

The Chicago Sun-Times (http://bit.ly/x8K9FZ ) reports that there were more than 10,660 homeless students at the beginning of the school year. That's nearly 1,500 more than the same point in the previous school year.

Last year the school ended with a record 15,580 students who were homeless.

Nicole Amling is the director of public policy at the Chicago Alliance to End Homelessness. She says many families are becoming homeless for the first time because they've lost housing. Others are having a difficult time finding work.
The National Center on Family Homelessness reports that 57,000 Illinois children were homeless in 2010. That's up from 30,636 in 2006.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

176. My church has just started a program for homeless *community college*

students.

I'm sure they're glad to be homeless so that Chinese (and soon Vietnamese, how that China is getting "too expensive&quot can work 14 hours a day in sweatshops making the kinds of products that their grandparents and great-grandparents used to make in America.

[Zalatix]

148. Many unemployed will never be able to get another job - thank outsourcing for this!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203513604577144483060678656.html#mod=djempersonal

[LanternWaste]

156. I imagine many people rationalize that imaginary, wholly made-up red and black lines...

I imagine many people rationalize that wholly made-up red and black lines on a map predicates that "some" should live in poverty, while "others" should live in convenience at their expense.

The economic justification to separate humanity is an effective one, as it allows a much greater amount of people living in first world conditions to better defend those imaginary lines.

[Zalatix]

159. I showed you a lot of America's poor and jobless in this thread. Why don't you tell them that?

And why do all pro-offshoring people flee in fear of that challenge?

[pampango]

161. Building tariff walls didn't help any country in the 1930's (except Germany but that had more to do

with huge defense spending increases rather than the success of "self-reliance" and discouraging trade). FDR ran against the republican Smoot/Hawley/Hoover tariffs in 1932 and then circumvented them with bilateral trade deals that negated Smoot/Hawley's effect.

There is no example of a country reducing poverty and unemployment by walling itself off. (I know it sounds like it should work, but there's a reason that it never does.) In fact the countries that have done the best at reducing inequality are precisely those that trade more than we do, e.g Canada, Germany, Australia, France, Sweden, etc. They have done this by enacting progressive laws that take care of their own people, not by walling off FOREIGNERS and their stuff.

How about the US enacts progressive taxes, an effective national health care system, an excellent safety net, starts to protect and promote strong unions and effectively regulates corporations and the financial industry. If, after that, inequality, poverty and unemployment are still a huge problem, then we go for tariffs, quotas and anything else that will keep 'them' way from 'us'.

Given the experiences of Canada, Germany, Australia, France, Sweden, etc., if we take care of our people like they do, we won't need to worry about building walls.

OTOH, we can ignore what works in other countries, demagogue foreigners (particularly the poorest ones) and see if we can't scare enough people to win elections if not actually solve any problems. (Teabaggers dislike international trade more than Democrats, so a strategy of blaming foreigners could have a 'bipartisan' aspect to it, as well.) Scare tactics work wonders for republicans in elections so why shouldn't we use them, too.

[Zalatix]

162. There is an example of a nation using tariffs to become rich. And the Smoot-Hawley story is a myth.

Please see this post on the DU about the Smoot Hawley fairy tale.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x48462

And China is one SOLID example of how a nation can get rich by devaluing its currency AND by raising tariffs. Their middle class has absolutely exploded as a result of that.

Next?

[pampango]

163. Next? Smoot-Hawley was bad republican policy. That much is not a myth. FDR knew it.

He campaigned against it and got around it once he was elected.

It is true that trade was a very small part of the US economy back then as your link to the other OP indicates. Those who think that Smoot-Hawley caused the Depression are indeed wrong. However FDR understood that the tariffs made economic recovery from the Depression more difficult which is why he enacted so many bilateral trade deals during his administration. His desire to prevent the return of high republican tariffs was also why he pushed for a more open global trading system with low tariffs in the post-WWII world.

It is interesting that republicans sought to raise tariffs with Smoot-Hawley even though, as the OP you referenced indicates, trade was such a tiny portion (11%) of the economy. Why did they increase tariffs if trade was so inconsequential? Because it's always easier to blame foreigners than it is to restructure your own society.

(Interestingly, trade is still a much smaller part of our economy (22%) than it is in Canada (42%), Germany (80%) and Sweden (90%). And yet, despite trade's relatively small size in our economy, just like in the Smoot-Hawley days, many focus on tariffs to punish foreigners, while the really progressive countries do nothing of the sort.)

With regards to China, you seem to want to adopt the Chinese model of economics rather than a European one. While the US' level of inequality is the worst in the developed world, China's is even worse. Europe's progressive economies are to me a better example of what the US should strive for than is China.

BTW, you mentioned tariffs in China. Perhaps you have different information, but the figures I have are that tariffs in China (averaging 2007 to 2009) equal 1.9% of their total imports which is higher than the US (1.2%) and the EU (1.1%) but not by very much. Are you suggesting that raising our tariffs by 0.7% would solve our problems? And if that didn't solve our problems is there some other way that we could blame our continuing problems on foreigners?

[Zalatix]

164. Blame foreigners? Hardly. It's about protecting American jobs.

And as for adopting the Chinese model of economics vs the European one, which zone is suffering a debt and currency crisis right now? Certainly not China.

Europe's progressive economies are bleeding jobs to India and China and the Euro is in the global intensive care unit. In fact, ALL western economies are indebted to China (the whole BRICs, in fact).

And China's tariffs are 25%, not 1-2% - that and they also devalue their currency. Look up "pegging". That's a tariff without calling it one.

Protectionism? You bet. American jobs for the American market.

[pampango]

178. Sounds like you would have been fighting FDR when he was dismantling tariffs in the 1930's and

setting up the GATT and the IMF after WWII. (Got to watch out for those "free-trading" Democrats, I guess.) That's fine. Republicans (like Smoot and Hawley) of the day could have used a little 'bipartisan' cover for their protectionist tariffs.

Sounds like you are a big proponent of China's model of economics. "And as for adopting the Chinese model of economics vs the European one, which zone is suffering a debt and currency crisis right now? Certainly not China." They are growing fast now (like Japan and Germany did after WWII) but their inequality is worse than ours.

You're welcome to China's model. I'll take economic model of Europe for all of it faults and current problems. They have much more income equality than China or the US and their governments take much better of their citizens in so many ways. If Sweden and China start handing out permanent residency visas, I can tell I'll be headed one way and you'll be headed the other.

Your source for your assertion that Chinese tariffs are 25%?

[Zalatix]

179. Europe's economic model is putting them deep in debt. Fail.

Oh and you might want to read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html?src=me

[Lydia Leftcoast]

189. FDR wasn't doing anything about tariffs after World War II

He died in April 1945.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

172. I see a lot of affluent Americans who have never met a real poor American or

seen what kinds of conditions the casualties of "free" trade in China live in, who treat The Economist magazine as some kind of Revealed Wisdom from God.

America's wars may have CREATED more poverty than its "free" trade policies ever solved.

I wonder how many of the "free" trade advocates went straight from suburban affluence through a college economics major and into more suburban affluence and therefore see "the poor," American or otherwise, as mere abstractions.

I wonder how many of the "free" trade advocates have ever worked at blue collar jobs. (I have, not only during the summer during my college years but also during three years of temping when I couldn't find a permanent teaching job after graduate school.) I wonder how many of them have volunteered in meal programs for the poor and have seen people who are obviously former members of the middle class (not the hardcore street people who patronized these services twenty and thirty years ago) lining up for a meal in a church basement.

I wonder how many of the "free" trade advocates understand how much the growth of a Chinese upper class has been more than balanced by worsening conditions for the poor, who have lost their social safety nets.

I wonder how many of the "free" trade advocates have seen the horrible council flats in London, with two generations of unemployment among native-born British people, and then gone to hotels and restaurants to see that almost all the jobs are held by Eastern Europeans. (Why hire a Brit with a school leaving certificate when you can get a university-educated Pole for the same price or less?)

[Zalatix]

182. Look at this very thread. Free Traders FEAR to talk about the poor in Western nations.

Every time you bring it up they run away and change the subject.