2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYou can't have economic justice without redistribution. Free trade has helped hundreds of millions
of people around the world.
It has provided jobs where previously the best jobs were in rural subsistence farming.
To say nothing of the benefits of providing internet and cell phone services to undeveloped countries.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Otherwise you are so misinformed about these so-called "Free trade" deals.
Do you disagree with any of the statements presented?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)at McDonnalds ....
TheBlackAdder
(28,664 posts).
This OP swings far to the LEFT of Sanders, and way beyond Agenda 21 Conspiracy Lunacy!
.
Just don't know if it's intentional or not.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Heaven forbid that increase for the bottom should come from the top, just squish the middle.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)in the world.
Top 1% of the world income is squarely right at the US median income (~US$30k)
dogman
(6,073 posts)But we can go lower if the wealthy can just equalize workers throughout the world. Is their equity coming from the wealthy or the middle class?
raging moderate
(4,467 posts)What the world needs is REAL redistribution, of the wealth and power, from the current hoarders who are the top .01%, back to the people actually producing goods and services. The real issue is the very small group of elitists who believe their verbal output somehow does more to create goods and services than the workers who do the real work. IO have actually read a book by one of these effete snobs claiming that physical labor is not real work; real work is the arduous task of browbeating underlings. The American people are tired of being trickled on. Probably the rest of the world is, too.
senz
(11,945 posts)and it stinks.
GreatGazoo
(3,951 posts)Free trade =
phantom power
(25,966 posts)I bet that'll have voters showing up droves to pull the lever for Democrats.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)We really need to weed out these "centrists" (repubs) from the party so we can be a true opposition party to the republicans again, instead of enabling their agenda.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)So sick of this bullshit denialism to protect the abusive wealthy, ruling class.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)...sadly.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)I think they're a Republican troll disguising themselves as an HRC supporter as I can't imagine an honest HRC supporter would say something so stupid. I don't see "DemocratSinceBirth" or "MineralMan" espousing such a stupid sentiment as the OP's. Yes I stand by my statement that saying "Free Trade is good because it's helped other 3rd World countries and screwed the American Middle Class" is a stupid sentiment to express.
Free Trade is grossly inefficient for one. We've created a bigger middle class percentagewise at a lower cost by FDR's policies versus China's and the rest of the 3rd World. Look at China's middle class numbers versus the poor there. It's PATHETIC when you compare it to our percentages.
It's also largely destructive towards local economies. Look at what NAFTA did to Haiti and Mexico in terms of growing their own food and tell me it was great for them. Any and all trade agreements should not allow imported food, especially American food, to be exempt from tariffs.
senz
(11,945 posts)Full blown gee oh pee. I've been seeing clear signs of it for awhile now.
Changes the entire picture, doesn't it?
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)This is an exquisite example of the purpose of the 3rd way. It appropriates terms like "redistribution of wealth" and perverts them to serve an argument for neofeudalism on a global scale. It is breathtaking in its brazen, deadpan rejection of critical thinking.
senz
(11,945 posts)I saw a demonstration of it 10 or 15 years ago by a grinning, gleeful Frank Luntz. In front of the camera, he turned an intelligent, articulate interviewer into confused speechlessness by quickly, cleverly, bypassing logic, effecting a subtle derailment of the conversation's meaning andl flow. Then he said something like, "See how easy it is?" and laughed. I knew at that moment that I had just viewed evil in action. Evil. Seriously. Luntz is an evil genius.
If you can wipe away people's critical faculties, if you can suck the meaning out of their words, their traditional phrases, and then alter the meaning of those words to something else, you have just effected a quick cancellation of the person's mind and communicative ability. It's a type of killing on the abstract level. (Sure, the interviewer would be fine, but he would be at a loss to understand and describe what had happened.)
Done on a broad scale, like what we saw here, they cleverly, gleefully demolish truth and render us sputtering until we become adept at verbally undoing the logic scramble and throwing it back at them. Orwell was good, but even he didn't foresee such fine-tuned assaults on truth and the ability to conceive of truth.
I'm glad you see through it, and I hope you're younger than me, because I don't have the energy to fight this shit full-on, but people are going to have to start doing it. I hope those who can see through this new type of lie will train the younger generation, the amazing millennials, to see it and defang it on the spot. What Hill did to Bernie with her "artful smears" during the debates is related to this. I'm sure she's being coached and trained by Luntzian rhetoricians. Bernie, who is a logical, linear thinker (like me), had no comeback, so it stood for day or so until analysts could dissect it. A lie travels half way around the world before truth has its boots on, etc.
It's a good thing I don't run the world, because I would not tolerate those who deliberately destroy logical discourse or in any way assault the mental capacities of their fellow human beings. There would be a punishment, and it would be severe. What gets me is that they enjoy doing it. They may as well be black widow spiders for all the good they do in this world.
By the way, you're already better at seeing through this crap than I am, because I could see that it's classic rightwing libertarianism/ koch brother corporatism, but you saw what it did: appropriated a term like "redistribution of wealth" and perverted it to serve an argument for neofeudalism on a global scale.
People like you are what we need, Fairgo.
ebayfool
(3,411 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)Free Trade has increased slavery around the world and increased the number of people receiving slave wages from billionaires.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Is the sky still blue in the reality you live in?
So, you're ok with a zero-sum game of economic devastation to some, as long as you think others got a very small step up? Those jobs in many cases are akin to slave labor. But hey, as long as they have those suicide nets to catch the workers, it's ok then right?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Probably not a coincidence that a HIllary supporter posted this.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Take your Republican arguments to the UN.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)has been replaced by a "Me first, if not, only" model for redistribution.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Thus our elected officials are supposed to represent our interests. That's how it works. Democracy 101.
If you live in Michigan you vote for the person to make Michigan better off. You don't vote for the person who makes Texas better.
"Elect me the governor of Michigan and I'll put a chicken in every pot in Texas" says no politician, ever.
You guys are a sad joke.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)revbones
(3,660 posts)Ridiculously right-wing corporatist tropes about free trade. Lots of posts about the glories of Hillary. Ability to deflect any Hillary issue with "right wing smear"....
Peter Daou at Blue Nation Review, is that you?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You want economic justice? It only comes from Unions. Not from corporations.
senz
(11,945 posts)not this stinking Third Way/Republican bullcrap.
This is significant. Do not let it be swept under the rug.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)I've read it all now.
hill2016
(1,772 posts)in lifting tens of millions of people out of poverty.
You can't have economic justice without redistribution. Is that's what socialists believe in?
senz
(11,945 posts)Where do you stand on that?
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)been rendered obsolete.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)How many jobs would have moved to Mexico for cheap labor if NAFTA never existed in the first place ? What is it about NAFTA that entices American businesses to seek out cheap labor abroad that wouldn't exist without NAFTA ?
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)It was the devaluation of the Mexican peso that caused the out source acceleration to mexico not NAFTA.
When the United States canceled the Bracero Program in 1964, Mexico retaliated with the creation of duty free zones called Maquiladora facatory system. NAFTA imposed a 2% value added tax that maquiladora factories didn't have. http://dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/claepapers/2001/lawp0103.pdf
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Some of what we export needs to change/ go away strictly for the sake of our environment. Some we will continue to do, because it's what we do best. But many things that we import, we should start reevaluating to see what can be shifted back to grow jobs and our economy. If businesses are highly profitable, and they're moving to Mexico just for more profit - no way, tax the hell out of anything they want to bring here to make it cost prohibitive to compete against American workers. Plain and simple.
What Carrier just did to workers, should be criminal. Instead it's celebrated on Wall Street. But tell me, do you think any of those employees will financially be able to (or ever want to) buy a Carrier product now that they're job has been eliminated? More short sighted thinking on the part of corporations and Wall Street, at the cost of American workers.
In 2015, total U.S. trade with foreign countries was $4.99 trillion. That was $2.23 trillion in exports and $2.76 trillion in imports of both goods and services. The United States the world's third-largest exporter, after China and the European Union (EU), and the world's largest importer. (Source: U.S. Census, U.S. Trade in Goods and Services. CIA World Factbook World Rankings)
What Does the United States Export?
Material goods contribute more than two-thirds of U.S. exports ($1.514 trillion). One-third of them is capital goods ($538 billion). The largest sub-categories are commercial aircraft ($119 billion), industrial machines ($54 billion), and semiconductors ($43 billion). Three other important sub-categories are telecommunications ($42 billion), electric apparatus ($43 billion) and medical equipment ($34 billion).
Another third of goods exports is industrial supplies and equipment ($428 billion). The largest sub-categories are chemicals ($86 billion), fuel oil ($38 billion), petroleum products ($54 billion), plastic ($34 billion), and non-monetary gold ($21 billion).
Only 13% of goods exports are consumer goods ($198 billion). It includes pharmaceuticals ($55 billion), cell phones ($25 billion) and gem diamonds ($20 billion). Here's more on Consumer Spending.
Automobiles contribute 10% of all goods exported. In 2015, that was $152 billion.
Just 9% of goods exported are foods, feeds, and beverages ($128 billion). The big three are soybeans ($20 billion), meat/poultry ($17 billion) and corn ($9 billion). Food exports are falling since many countries don't like U.S.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/Imports-Exports-Components.htm
GreenPartyVoter
(72,954 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)GreenPartyVoter
(72,954 posts)Chezboo
(230 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)of the crap being sold by the anti-free trade folks. And it has been proven that many of the jobs being lost in the rust belt were being lost long before NAFTA. The links to the information are out there. Research it.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)GreenPartyVoter
(72,954 posts)SamKnause
(13,563 posts)I can't believe people defend this stuff with a straight face.
polly7
(20,582 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)and it's worth giving it some thought.
Things aren't what we thought they were.
SamKnause
(13,563 posts)this was intended to be a joke.
Broward
(1,976 posts)SHRED
(28,136 posts)No links and just corporate RW propaganda.
Broward
(1,976 posts)how much is allowed to stand in the Dem Party these days. The Party continues to sink lower and lower.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)It provides slave wage jobs and sweat shops.
Response to hill2016 (Original post)
Post removed
Jitter65
(3,089 posts)she gets slammed. lol
SHRED
(28,136 posts)From the working class and poor to the wealthy.
What Bernie idea was it she's being slammed for?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Thanks for the identification service you provide.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Texas Observer / By Melissa del Bosque
The difficult and dangerous working conditions that Rosa and at least 1.3 million other Mexican workers endure were supposed to get better. They didn't.
Photo Credit: Alan Pogue
December 11, 2013 |
.... On this night, Feb. 19, 2011, she couldnt shake the feeling that something was wrong, a premonition that perhaps she shouldnt go. But she needed the money. It was the final shift in her six-day workweek, and if she missed a day, the factory would dock her 300 pesos. She couldnt afford to lose that kind of money. Her family already struggled to survive on the 1,300 pesos (about $100) a week she earned. Unable to shake the bad feeling, shed already missed her bus, and now shed have to pay for a taxi. But the thought of losing 300 pesos was worse. She had to go. Rosa kissed her six children goodnight and set out across town.
In the Mexican border city of Reynosa, the hundreds of maquiladoras that produce everything from car parts to flat-screen televisions run day and night365 days a yearto feed global demand. Rosa worked from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. at a factory called HD Electronics in a sprawling maquiladora park near the international bridge that links Reynosa, an industrial city of 600,000, to Pharr, Texas. Like the 90,000 or more workers in Reynosa, the 38-year-old Rosa depended on these factories for her livelihood. In the 11 years since she moved to the city, she had welded circuitry for Asian and European cell phone companies, assembled tubing for medical IV units to be shipped over the border to the United States, and worked on a production line assembling air conditioners for General Motors.
This was her second month at HD Electronics, a South Korean firm that had moved to Reynosa in 2006 to produce the metal backing for flat-screen televisions made by another South Korean firm, LG Electronicsa $49 billion corporation. LG also has a plant in Reynosa and could scarcely keep up with the North American demand for its plasma and LCD televisions.
At HD Electronics, Rosa operated a 200-ton hydraulic stamping press. Every night, six days a week, she fed the massive machine thin aluminum sheets. The machine ran all day, every day. Each time the press closed it sounded like a giant hammer striking metal: thwack, thwack, thwack. The metal sheets emerged pierced and molded into shape for each model and size of television. At the factory, 20 women, including Rosa, worked the presses to make the pieces for the smaller televisions. Nearby were 10 larger presses, each of which took two men to operate, to make backings for the giant-screen models.
Full Article: http://www.alternet.org/labor/after-20-years-nafta-thanks-nafta-what-happened-mexican-factory-workers-rosa-moreno?akid=11305.44541.10ylde&rd=1&src=newsletter939436&t=21
NAFTA Is Starving Mexico
Thu Oct 20th 2011, 09:40 AM
By Laura Carlsen, October 20, 2011
"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 countrys farm families, who used to produce enough food to feed the nation.
As the blood-spattered violence of the drug war takes over the headlines, many Mexican men, women, and children confront the slow and silent violence of starvation. The latest reports show that the number of people living in food poverty (the inability to purchase the basic food basket) rose from 18 million in 2008 to 20 million by late 2010.
About one-fifth of Mexican children currently suffer from malnutrition. An innovative measurement applied by the National Institute for Nutrition registers a daily count of 728,909 malnourished children under five for October 18, 2011. Government statistics report that 25 percent of the population does not have access to basic food."
Full article: http://www.fpif.org/articles/nafta_is_starving_mexico
Millions of Mexican farmers and their families forced by NAFTA to the cities to work in dangerous conditions for low wages. That's not fair or free trade - it's relocating and decimating the lives of whole populations to further enrich those factory owners and the 1% corporations that benefit from these ugly deals.
polly7
(20,582 posts)closeupready
(29,503 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Kind of inconvenient for people who put that at NAFTA's feet. That factory moved back when there were zero rules about moving to Mexico.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Some time around then at any rate, after closing their operations in the US.
HumanityExperiment
(1,442 posts)"You have economic injustice causing wealth redistribution to the top 1%. Free trade deals have helped hundreds of One percenters by the millions if not billions of dollars"
felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)no labor, safety, environmental, food standards or labeling laws. TTIP will give all sovereign countries' rights to international companies, if they are hard to sue now, this law will make it impossible. The only redress will be for people to recognize and override corrupt corporate laws.
The companies get all the freedom and the people get screwed.
bunnies
(15,859 posts)*smh* Try google before you make such erroneous statements next time.
SHRED
(28,136 posts)Prove it's been good for us citizens in the USA.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)Something tells me you'd be up in arms if Americans were working for the same wages that NAFTA has brought to the third world. Oh wait. They're under the poverty line because you are either unable or unwilling to pressure your fearless leader to reinstate Glass-Steagall and regulate the plutocrats.
A standing ovation for your erroneously principled OP.
angstlessk
(11,862 posts)The poor countries and the poor people are still poor!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...that they are based on World Bank rating of poverty as being an (adjusted) income of <$2/day.
The most movement in poverty numbers since the deals have hit has been in China.
Most of those that moved out of poverty (as defined by the WB) had a starting point above $1.88 per day and have only increased their income by a few cents per day.
phleshdef
(11,936 posts)You are on the wrong damn site.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Think Tony Clifton.
Never has anyone trolled so well. The fact that you haven't been sent packing is evidence of the degree to which this place has gone to shit.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)because the idea that someone who claims to be a Democrat can actually believe this nonsense is terrifying.
pampango
(24,692 posts)a price has been paid by the 80-90 percentile of global income (mostly the western middle class) in the past 25 years. (Since that is us it matters more than if it was an intellectual exercise.) Of course the global 1%, particularly the top 0.1%, have seen seen huge gains as well.
The question is whether we can maintain an international system that benefits the world's poorest 23 while reining in the 1%.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)If you drill down I don't think that statement is able to be supported.
/Impressive/ is a very subjective word, and it needs to be explained in terms of who, exactly, benefited and by exactly how much. Most of those who moved above the World Bank poverty level of $2/day were already at an average level of $1.88/day.
So while it sounds great the way you put it, the actual circumstances of those workers and the proximate causes of exactly why the increases occurred (eg mercantilism rather than free trade) do not really provide support for the impression that your claim seeks to create.
pampango
(24,692 posts)http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/01/recent-history-in-one-chart/
It is certainly true that the global poor started from an extremely low level of income. I'm not sure how you get someone who is at an extremely low level of income to say a Western level of income in just a few years. The graph shows that progress has been made though much remains to be done.
The incomes gains of much of the global poor over the past 25 years is a good thing. What would make it better is if it came at expense of the global 1%, not from the Western middle class.
Agreed. The income gains of the poorest 70% may have nothing to to with trade (free or otherwise). If that is the case it is important that we understand what did cause the gains (or what combination of factors), so that we do not short-circuit those gains in the future.
One point is that FDR believed that promoting international trade after WWII was key to spreading prosperity. He may have been wrong about that but it is not outside the realm of possibility that he was right.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Free trade is a completely different animal. It is Somalia level deregulation for international corporations and it does little except serve as a means of wealth transfer to those on the far right of that graph.
As Bernie says - Fair Trade, not Free Trade.
We need to start by revamping the regulatory framework to return the goal of corporate management to one focused on building their company's long term prospects.
The debate over the extent and causes of rising inequality of American incomes and wages has now raged for at least two decades. In this paper, we will make four arguments. First, the increase in the incomes and wages of the top 1 percent over in the last three decades should largely be interpreted as driven by the creation and/or redistribution of economic rents, and not simply as the outcome of well-functioning competitive markets rewarding skills or productivity based on marginal differences. This rise in rents accruing to the top 1 percent could be the result of increased opportunities for rent-shifting, increased incentives for rent-shifting, or a combination of both. Second, this rise in incomes at the very top has been the primary impediment to living standards growth for low and moderate-income households approaching the growth rate of economy-wide productivity. Third, because this rise in top incomes is largely driven by rents, there is the potential for checking (or even reversing) this rise through policy measures with little to no adverse impact on overall economic growth. Lastly, this analysis suggests two complementary approaches for policymakers wishing to reverse the rise in the top 1 percents share of income: dismantling the institutional sources of their increased ability to channel rents their way and/or reducing the return to this rent-seeking by significantly increasing marginal rates of taxation on high incomes.
http://www.epi.org/publication/pay-corporate-executives-financial-professionals/
For reference:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-22/american-airlines-ceo-forgos-cash-with-shift-to-stock-only-pay
pampango
(24,692 posts)agreements as FDR proposed with his ITO? If so, I think that would be fantastic. If it is done by unilateral action on the part of the US, that would be a different matter.
While the world's poorest 70% have indeed benefited over the past few decades, as FDR would have predicted, I hope that 'fair trade' achieves benefits for the Western middle class that come out of the obscene gains of the global 0.1% rather than from the world's poor who are, despite their recent gains, still quite poor.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Everything starts with a strong middle class, not with shareholder value.
pampango
(24,692 posts)those in one country. It would not be 'fair' if it strengthened one set of workers and weakened another set.
FDR understood this was the case, so he made labor rights for workers in all signatory countries (eventually 49 of them) were an integral part of his ITO. He certainly understood that the health of the middle class and workers' rights resulted from liberal domestic policies (which he provided) and protected by his high-standards trade organization.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)We can and should try for win-win, but if it's win-lose something needs to guide the decision making. It isn't nationalistic to take care of your home first. I seriously doubt FDR would see it differently.
pampango
(24,692 posts)not 'nationalist' in nature, but rather 'internationalist'.
In part FDR was reacting to the unilateral trade approach employed by Coolidge and Hoover before him. Those republicans raised tariffs repeatedly to 'protect' American industry. He saw that unilateral action to 'protect', though it sounded good, was an utter failure resulting in a historic level of income equality and weak middle class by the end of the 1920's.
He did take care of "his home first" with high/progressive taxes, legal protection for labor unions, effective business regulation and an improved safety net. Those are the same policies that progressive countries use today to 'take care' of their citizens and ensure that prosperity is widely shared. That was and is a positive form of nationalism.
Neither FDR in his day nor modern Germany, Sweden, Canada and other countries tried to limit trade out of a nationalistic fear that competition would be harmful. They all sought to expand trade particularly with high-standards trade organizations. Modern progressive countries have strong middle classes because they follow the FDR model of strong liberal domestic policies coupled with expanded trade.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your screed is off point to the issue of guiding values that I'm pointing towards. You might want to take a fresh look at the state of well being in the countries you are using as examples. The last 2 decades have seen great deal of degradation via corporatism in their ability to maintain the commitment to the "middle classes" based on "the FDR model of strong liberal domestic policies coupled with expanded trade".
The problem - corporate rights vs human rights.
pampango
(24,692 posts)FDR did not view trade as a win-lose, zero-sum game. His ITO was specifically designed to promote a multinational, cooperative approach to the management of trade which would help both sides win and ensure that the workers and middle classes shared in the benefits, not just the 1%.
Trump seems to be a proponent of the win-lose, zero-sum approach to trade. Of course, in his world he will bully other countries so effectively that we will WIN, WIN, WIN so often that we get sick of WINNING. He does not know or does not care that Coolidge and Hoover had that same view of trade. His approach is a throw-back to that pre-FDR era of republican trade policy. Just as he is a throw-back to their policies on attacking unions, cutting taxes for the rich, deregulation, shredding the safety net and worsening the income inequality problem.
The difference between FDR's 'win-win' internationalism and Trump's 'win-lose' nationalism on trade policy is not hair-splitting. We share the VALUES of wanting a strong middle class, strong unions and a fair distribution of income among other things. We apparently differ on how to get there.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)First, I have no idea why you are injecting Trump's rants into this, they don't belong.
I don't accept any premise where all relationships are able to be shaped into an 'everyone wins' agreement. It simply isn't possible. We can strive for the ideal, but when the ideal fails we turn to value-parsing the options that lie before us. Confining the discussion only to what we hope can happen isn't valid and I'm not going to do it.
pampango
(24,692 posts)I have not heard Trump say that an issue needed to be negotiated to all sides' satisfaction. He has many times promised various forms of unilateral action.
Obviously, FDR was extremely capable of taking unilateral action on the world stage, but he showed a preference for multilateral organizations and negotiated agreements in his vision for the post-war world.
Fair enough. As long as "we strive for the ideal", we will have tried. IMHO, liberals are much more dedicated to negotiating mutually-beneficial agreements to international problems than are conservatives who prefer 'cowboy diplomacy' and 'coalitions of the willing'.
Despite liberals' best efforts sometimes mutually-beneficial agreements are not achievable. Then we have to decide whether to accept the status quo or take unilateral action.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)As Bernie says - Fair Trade, not Free Trade.
We need to start by revamping the regulatory framework to return the goal of corporate management to one focused on building their company's long term prospects.
Not sure what causes you to throw unilateral action into a discussion on trade agreements. Unilateral action is always going to be part of a sovereign nation's armamentarium so your remark doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I also challenge the premise of the idea that all gains in wealth by the world's poor are attributable to "free" trade agreements. There are far too many variables such as technology, maturation of local economic conditions and stabilizing local government policies for that blanket conclusion to be valid.
Perhaps we should go back a few steps and have you define free trade. Be sure and include the performance we see occurring on the right side of your graph.
pampango
(24,692 posts)That is much more limited than most people's definition, I think. All the "free trade agreements" are hundreds of pages long with all kinds of rules to follow and enforce; not "free" in my book. Other people seem to consider WTO-regulated trade to be 'free trade' which would include 99% of the world's trade.
The income gains of the 1%, particularly the top 0.1%, have been more than obscene. That is particularly true in the US which engages in relatively little trade compared to other countries. Progressive countries that trade much more have not seen the same level of obscene income gains.
Of course, these obscene income gains are not trade-dependent. The 1% did even better in the 1920's after republicans repeatedly raised tariffs and reduced trade to a small amount.
I hope I did not say that. The vast majority of the world's poor do not live in countries that are a party to a "free trade agreement", unless again one counts all WTO trade as "free", so FTA's can't be credited with contributing to those gains.
I posted recently that I don't know how much of the income gains of the world's poor are due to trade, 'free' or otherwise. I think most economists think that trade has played a significant role in those income gains.
Of course, unilateral action is always 'an arrow in the quiver'.
One would hope that liberals will pursue win-win' negotiations with other countries before we go unilateral. We could have gone unilateral on Iran (as could have Iran but refusing to negotiate and continuing its nuclear efforts). Fortunately, we and they worked out a 'win-win' negotiated agreement.
Of course, once a country signs an agreement like this or a climate agreement or a trade agreement, it may be tempting at some point to break the agreement and go unilateral even though you agreed not to do so. That is what Trump s threatening with his unilateral tariffs on Mexico and China. He knows that is part of "a sovereign nation's armamentarium." You are right.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)basselope
(2,565 posts)WooHoo?
elleng
(134,717 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)You aren't fooling anyone.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Obvious, isn't it?
applegrove
(121,570 posts)to the poor, working poor and middle classes of the world in opportunity for them to participate in robust economies with good education, safe environment, good health care, fair business practices and all.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 25, 2016, 10:59 PM - Edit history (1)
I think you mean forced peasants off their traditional lands into cities where they have to prostitute themselves to survive.
TheBlackAdder
(28,664 posts).
I knew there would be the double-edged comments--flapping in the breeze!
One minute against offshoring, next wanting it. All the while I knew the HRC Camp sided with the GOP on this issue.
Now, it's a good thing again to ship jobs offshore? It's good for the oligarchs who are shifting jobs to countries that enslave people with $2 a day to $2 an hour jobs. And certain morons think that by shifting US labor to other countries, their economic conditions will get any better! That's as stupid as sending food to certain countries that just gets intercepted by the local bosses, never reaching the target audiences. Those in power, in third-world countries, will keep the profits and abuse their citizens.
It's only getting better in the countries that are paying for 100% college, such as Poland. India has a caste system that only improves the lives of the upper-classes.
.
Cobalt Violet
(9,908 posts)Your candidate is so wrong. I don't even know where to start with a post this dumb.
glowing
(12,233 posts)gathering in a societal structure. Fair Trade as opposed to Free Trade is the proper way to set up trade negotiations to protect developing countries from having their resources, people, and environment exploited by corporations trying to pocket more greed for profit. The only reason these large corporations that manufactured in the USA moved entire plants to other parts of the world was NOT because they wanted to "redistribute wealth". NO they wanted to exploit unstable govts, poor people, and have access to their resources...
BTW, what is wrong with farming? Thanks to NAFTA, we decimated family farms and small fisher families, pushed many to seek jobs in the cities OR to come into America to make funds to send back to those small villages.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Trade will never be perfectly 'fair' since perfection in any political policy is unachievable but it can be and should be much 'fairer' than it is today.
To me 'fair trade' "is the proper way to set up trade negotiations to protect", not only developing countries, but labor rights, human rights, environmental standards and business regulation standards in all participating countries. (The EU most closely approximates this in modern practice.) That not only makes trade 'fair' but ensures that each country's 99% benefits from both trade between countries but from the domestic economy (which is usually a lot bigger than the trade-related economy) in each country.
High standards on labor rights, human rights, environmental standards and business regulation standards would be enforced objectively and multilaterally, then countries could trade with each other as much or as little as they want using these common high standards. That would be 'fair'.
That should be what we striving for; not Trump's unilaterally-imposed tariffs or other punishments which he contends, without any historical basis, will mean that WE can WIN, WIN, WIN so often that we 'get sick of winning'. (Presumably he believes that other countries will LOSE, LOSE, LOSE yet continue to play the Trump trade game. Or perhaps he knows that they will quickly tire of playing the LOSE, LOSE, LOSE game and react like they did in the 1920's and come up with their own unilaterally-imposed tariffs and other punishments. That did not end well in the '20's and would not end well now either.)
Sky Masterson
(5,240 posts)never mind. You can't reason with Right-Wingers.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)were lost with the economic crash and why did those gains require a 40 year wage suppression effort against the U.S. worker