Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Since Free Traders believe that America should lower its standard of living to help the third world [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)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.
FDRs Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade
by David Woolner
<...>
The driving force behind this effort was FDRs 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 FDRs 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, FDRs attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hulls 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, Hulls 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 Hulls 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 worlds 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 administrations 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 Americas 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/
by David Woolner
<...>
The driving force behind this effort was FDRs 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 FDRs 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, FDRs attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hulls 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, Hulls 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 Hulls 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 worlds 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 administrations 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 Americas 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/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
189 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Since Free Traders believe that America should lower its standard of living to help the third world [View all]
Zalatix
Jan 2012
OP
and Administrations that "Cook the Books" to say it doesn't harm Americans / America
FreakinDJ
Jan 2012
#29
I actually bought a little manual clothes washer at the thrift store I work at.
Odin2005
Jan 2012
#57
I used one of those for a few years. Worked a treat. I gave it to a relative living in NYC in a
MADem
Jan 2012
#80
I've never understood how any working class person could vote repug. One would think it difficult
SammyWinstonJack
Jan 2012
#21
Shouldn't they start the ball rolling by giving their money to the 1% in other countries?
eppur_se_muova
Jan 2012
#5
I think that they did with the bank bailouts. Some for our 1%. Some for the foreign countries' 1%.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#82
When did Washington become the capital of the world, as opposed to the capital of the U.S.?
Laelth
Jan 2012
#20
Free trade does not improve the quality of life of people living in other countries
JDPriestly
Jan 2012
#33
Tariffs. China uses them against us, we have a right to use them against China.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#112
Let's look at what you previously said, and my questions that you previously avoided
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#122
Then you do not understand the nature of our trade deficit. Allow me to explain, with CITES.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#154
No... your disgusting insult is that we as Progressives should curtail American standards of living
fascisthunter
Jan 2012
#49
What about OUR working class? What about us? Why should we go unemployed for this?
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#90
We shouldn't. If trade policy is done correctly and fairly is should benefit both sides.
DCBob
Jan 2012
#97
Dear free traders, here are more Americans losing jobs to make the rest of the world a better place.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#16
You see we are makeing their lives better. Just think about those happy people at Foxcon.
wandy
Jan 2012
#24
It is interesting how folks paint essentially slavery as altruistic and "progressive"
TheKentuckian
Jan 2012
#78
You know, when ever a "centrist" or right-winger says that a certain policy will
Lydia Leftcoast
Jan 2012
#174
If anyone has forgotten, maybe one of them will remind us by repeating what they said.
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#85
no it doesn't.... his point of view on this ISN'T progressive... it is flawed
fascisthunter
Jan 2012
#52
Krugman has begun to change his mind on outsourcing, so you're wrong on this, too.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#92
"Krugman's views on free trade have provoked considerable ire from the anti-globalism movement".
Nye Bevan
Jan 2012
#66
Krugman called for a 25% tariff on China. I posted the cite already. That's NOT free trade.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#125
Free Traders are never the Ones lowering their own Standards of living for the World
fascisthunter
Jan 2012
#46
The dirty little secret you NEVER hear uttered by the media or pols. n/t
Populist_Prole
Jan 2012
#53
No, because that's an ad hominem argument. But, if that is their position, even a broken clock
AnotherMcIntosh
Jan 2012
#86
Repubs would hate that idea (the mythical North American Union is a mainstay of bircher fears).
pampango
Jan 2012
#75
There is NO "free trade". World trade is controlled by a cabal of multinational corporations.
AdHocSolver
Jan 2012
#87
that would all be a valid point if "globalization" was improving the quality of life in the third
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2012
#99
it is dishonest to represent the majority as benefiting when that is clearly not the case
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2012
#102
I would suggest taking a trip off the beaten path a little bit and away from the tourist belt
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2012
#104
I certainly do get off the beaten path.. I have relatives in the province far from any major city.
DCBob
Jan 2012
#105
Yes, I think thats correct but from what I understand there are always new contracts.
DCBob
Jan 2012
#109
While there is a "rising middle class" in China and India, the poor are worse off than ever
Lydia Leftcoast
Jan 2012
#167
Yes, that is true also in the Philippines. Prices of almost everything are going up.
DCBob
Jan 2012
#177
Um, there's no proper way to send American jobs out of the country. None. Zero. Nada.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#186
I suspect the growing middle classes of China and India would probably disagree with you
Spider Jerusalem
Jan 2012
#119
The vast majority of Indians and Chinese are not participating in it except as victims of
Douglas Carpenter
Jan 2012
#126
It has everything to do with the topic at hand and yes, you absolutely do know that.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#133
Food crises, pollution, slave labor & child labor are acceptable because "welcome to globalization"?
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#138
The top 1-5% of China and India are buying cars - made by slaves and high pollution
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#123
There is a reason why you won't respond to this... my response is even MORE uncomfortable.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#127
Your argument has so many errors, where to start! And can you back up anything with cites? Anything?
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#145
We're supposed to be glad because our poor are "better off" than those in India?
Lydia Leftcoast
Jan 2012
#170
I have actual experience working blue collar jobs and volunteering in programs
Lydia Leftcoast
Jan 2012
#173
That's what I want to get into more of... community organizing to create jobs, to be specific.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#175
I'm not a one-worlder. I don't want China having a vote on my country's reproductive rights.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#144
These homeless students are making sacrifices to help the poor in other nations...
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#124
Many unemployed will never be able to get another job - thank outsourcing for this!
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#148
I imagine many people rationalize that imaginary, wholly made-up red and black lines...
LanternWaste
Jan 2012
#156
I showed you a lot of America's poor and jobless in this thread. Why don't you tell them that?
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#159
Building tariff walls didn't help any country in the 1930's (except Germany but that had more to do
pampango
Jan 2012
#161
There is an example of a nation using tariffs to become rich. And the Smoot-Hawley story is a myth.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#162
Next? Smoot-Hawley was bad republican policy. That much is not a myth. FDR knew it.
pampango
Jan 2012
#163
Sounds like you would have been fighting FDR when he was dismantling tariffs in the 1930's and
pampango
Jan 2012
#178
I see a lot of affluent Americans who have never met a real poor American or
Lydia Leftcoast
Jan 2012
#172
Look at this very thread. Free Traders FEAR to talk about the poor in Western nations.
Zalatix
Jan 2012
#182