Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Nation: Dems Sell Out on Trade

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
marmar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:05 PM
Original message
The Nation: Dems Sell Out on Trade
Edited on Thu May-17-07 01:06 PM by marmar
Dems Sell Out on Trade


When Democratic and Republican leaders announce they have fashioned a "historic" bipartisan compromise on trade, put your hand over your wallet. It probably means somebody has been sold out. In this case, we think it's the broad coalition of citizens--labor and environmental advocates and others--who want to reform corporate-led globalization. That includes all those voters who, last fall, elected new Democrats who promised to confront the multinational establishment. These insurgent forces have been pushed into a corner by the Democratic leadership's "free trade" gambit. We urge them to push back--hard--and defeat the agreement if they can.

Despite what you may have read, Nancy Pelosi's compact with George W. Bush is not a done deal. It is an intense fight--the first round in what we expect to be an epic intramural struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. The deal that Speaker Pelosi and House Ways and Means Committee chair Charles Rangel made with the Administration casts the Democratic leadership's lot with Robert Rubin and the multinational interests of business and finance.

This deeper meaning of the deal has been obscured by Pelosi and her lieutenants' hailing their "compromise" as a great victory for labor and environmental advocates. It's true that the bargain includes strong new language calling for enforceable labor and environmental rights, and activists are rightly celebrating that advance.

But look more closely. It is an empty achievement. The breakthrough language would be applied only to agreements pending with Peru and Panama--trivial in size and economic impact. The claim that this labor/enviro provision will become the template for future trade agreements is bogus. This deal is for Bush only. The next President will make his or her own deal with Congress. The same claim was made for the labor rights provision in the Jordan trade agreement Bill Clinton signed in 2000. It didn't change anything. In fact, Jordan has easily evaded what were thought--even by labor activists--to be solid protections in that agreement. If Pelosi is fighting for a genuinely progressive agreement, she should insist that Bush commit himself to the same strong labor/enviro rules for the stalled Doha round of the World Trade Organization negotiations. That would be a real victory.

The objective of Democratic leaders seems clear: to marginalize the fair-trade dissenters, coax the party into approving more trade agreements and, above all, grant renewed fast-track authority to the President. Fast-track effectively stymies Congress's influence on trade issues, denying any chance to make changes in negotiated agreements. That's why the business lobby loves it so. That the US Chamber of Commerce is delighted with Pelosi ought to tell you something. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/editors


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Corporate money buys politicians of all denominations. That's the peoples' biggest problem now.
And I don't see any way out since the crooks are the ones to make the laws.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
2. Sure am Glad Im getting old ...
Wont matter much to me .... Think I'll go water the veggies; this news cycle is really tough on the blood pressure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. Unions, environmental groups, small businesses and most of US Congress excluded!
Unions, environmental groups, small businesses and most of US Congress excluded!

PUBLIC CITIZEN ASKS PUBLIC TO MAKE ITS VOICE HEARD IN OPPOSITION: Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch sent out an urgent email alert calling on the progressive movement to contact Members of Congress demanding they reject the deal.

Public Citizen said the deal specifically refuses to "de-NAFTA-fyi trade agreements by removing the bans on anti-off-shoring and Buy America policies, or the outrageous foreign investor rights that facilitate off-shoring and attacks on our health and environmental laws" adding that this is "a scenario where some truly tasty icing has been spread over a deeply rotten cake."

The group confirmed that "Unions, environmental groups, small businesses, and (most outrageously) most members of the U.S. Congress were excluded from the negotiations, had NO access to the various documents and texts and had no say and in fact no notice on the deal."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Change To Win: Labor "Blindsided" By Dem Leadership/Bush Trade Deal - 05/16/07
http://www.laborradio.org/node/5925

Change To Win: Labor "Blindsided" By Dem Leadership/Bush Trade Deal - 05/16/07

By Doug Cunningham

The Change To Win labor federation says the Peru and Panama trade deal with some labor protections House Democratic leaders reached with the Bush administration amounts to a minor tune-up when a major overhaul for workers is needed. Change To Wins Yvette Pena Lopez says Democrats didnt cooperate closely with labor on this deal with Bush.

: We were completely blindsided when the press conference happened. And the Democrats, the Democratic leadership, stood together and announced this quote, unquote great deal for the American worker. If it really was a great deal, then we should have been able to stand right next to them and hold hands and say, yes, this is a great deal finally, the day has come. And unfortunately thats not where were finding ourselves.

Pena Lopez says Change To Win unions oppose it and the trade deal probably wont get a majority of Democratic votes in the House either. Trade policies have cost U.S. workers millions of jobs and Change To Win says this deal reached by Democratic leaders and Bush is not nearly enough to fix U.S. trade policy.

: Congress should pause and step back for a moment before pushing forward these trade agreements and really do something about our skyrocketing trade deficit.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sirota's been all over this topic for weeks. Link to weekslong blogging here:
Edited on Thu May-17-07 01:25 PM by cyberpj
The latest:
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
SECRET TRADE DEAL: Dems Bow to Pressure, Plan Trade Meeting Thursday

MyDD's Matt Stoller is reporting that House Democrats have added the trade issue to a joint Whip/Caucus meeting tomorrow at 9:00am. The move follows Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel's move yesterday to block a previously scheduled meeting on trade. Emanuel, one of the chief architects of NAFTA, has been using his chairmanship to block rank-and-file Democrats' request to hold a debate about the trade deal. Now, with growing pressure on the Democratic leadership to reject the deal, a new meeting has been set.

Just today, Wisconsin Rep. Steve Kagan (D), who represents a crucial swing district, took to the floor of the House to attack the deal and demand the release of its details. You can download the video of that speech here. Still no word on whether the legislative language of the deal will be made public at the meeting, or whether instead Democratic leaders are planning to go ahead with newly announced White House plans to avoid renegotiating the trade deals in question, thus making the much-touted labor and environmental standards unenforceable.

http://www.davidsirota.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tejanocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
6. What's the consensus on which are the best and worst Democratic candidates on fair trade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Biden is probably the worst, Clinton is right down there wallowing in the trough
with him, Edwards isn't in office so he has the luxury of saying anything he thinks we want to hear, but was a corporate shill when he was, Dodd is slime and Kucinich is steadfastly pro-worker, but isn't making any headway at all.

Gee, I just can't wait for the next election. :eyes:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. BEST ON FAIR TRADE: Kucinich, Edwards, Obama. WORST: Richardson, Hillary. AFL/CIO Source:
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_trade.cfm .

But bear in mind, even the "worst" Democrats aren't too terrible and are much better than and Repub likely to get elected:

Summaries:

KUCINICH
Kucinich is a vocal opponent of unfair trade policies and job exporting.

"I have traveled across America. And I have seen the effects of agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA: padlocked gates of abandoned factories, grass growing in parking lots of places where workers used to make steel, used to make washing machines, used to make textiles, used to make machine parts.

"Free trade has meant freedom for the American worker to stand in the unemployment line while their jobs were traded away. So-called free trade has brought broken dreams, broken homes, broken hearts to the American manufacturing worker. Trade without equity is tyranny. Trade without economic justice is theft. Trade without integrity, without workers' rights, without human rights, without environmental principles is not worthy of a free people." (Kucinich in the final House CAFTA debate, 7/27/05)

Kucinich advocates the end of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization to protect workers and the environment.

"The exodus of jobs from our shores and the "race to the bottom" for workers around the world is an obvious result of NAFTA and the WTO, both of which make it impossible to place taxes or tariffs on outsourced work. The search for countries where workers are unrepresented and environmental rules are lax must end. NAFTA, WTO, 'Fast Track' legislation, and the Free Trade Area of the Americas must be rejected and replaced with Fair Trade policies in which bilateral trade agreements are negotiated to provide for living wages for workers and environmental safeguards." (Campaign website)


EDWARDS
Edwards opposes a proposed trade deal with South Korea, which he says would be bad for the U.S. auto industry, and wants to see real labor standards in future trade agreements.

"We need trade that works for American workers, which means there need to be real labor standards, real environmental standards."(Associated Press, 4/22/07)

As a U.S. senator, Edwards voted against bad trade agreements with Singapore and Chile.He also supported an amendment to Fast Track trade authority legislation to require U.S. trade negotiators to seek workers rights standards and enforcement provisions in future trade agreements, equal to those negotiated in the U.S.-Jordan agreement. (H.R. 2739, 7/31/03; H.R. 2738, 7/31/03; H.R. 3009, 5/16/02)

Unions, Edwards says, made manufacturing jobs good jobs and calls "organized labor the nation's greatest anti-poverty movement." (AP, 9/4/06)


OBAMA
Obama voted against CAFTA but for the Oman Free Trade Agreement. (H.R. 3045, 7/28/05; S. 3569, 6/29/06)

He said he opposed CAFTA because workers are not getting help dealing with the negative effects of the corporate-driven global economy.

"I wish I could vote in favor of CAFTA. In the end, I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for American consumers and American workers.I meet these workers all across Illinois, workers whose jobs moved to Mexico or China and are now competing with their own children for jobs that pay 7 bucks an hour. In town meetings and union halls, I've tried to tell these workers the truththat these jobs aren't coming back, that globalization is here to stay and that they will have to train more and learn more to get the new jobs of tomorrow. But when they wonder how they will get this training and this education, when they ask what they will do about their health-care bills and their lower wages and the general sense of financial insecurity that seems to grow with each passing day, I cannot look them in the eyes and tell them that their government is doing a single thing about these problems. That is why I won't vote for CAFTA." (Press release, 6/30/05)


RICHARDSON
As U.N. ambassador under Pres. Bill Clinton, Richardson represented the administrations view that free trade could ultimately be a positive thing for the country. In a speech at the City of Denvers Annual Free Trade Dinner,

Richardson warned against the threat of passivism in the face of global opportunities and challenges, and emphasized the growing importance of free trade, both to Americans and the world at large.'We must be willing to embrace, not selfishly evade, the responsibilities and obligations that the imperative of American leadership entails,' Ambassador Richardson told the several hundred guests. To do so, 'we must do more to seize the opportunity and the limitless possibilities that free trade and global engagement represents for the American people.' (Richardsons remarks, 5/19/98)

But Richardson supports stronger enforcements for wage disparity and worker and environmental protection.

"On the pending free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, Richardson said, 'I'm a free trader. But I think free trade agreements have to have stronger enforcements in three areas: wage disparity, worker protection and environmental protection.' He said he would only support the pending trade deals if they contain stronger enforcement provisions in those areas." (Miami Herald, 2/26/07)


HILLARY
Clinton voted against CAFTA and an unfair trade agreement with the Dominican Republic, but she voted for bad trade agreements with Oman, Singapore and Chile. (S. 3569, 6/29/06; S. 1307, 6/30/05; H.R. 2739, 7/31/03; H.R. 2738, 7/31/03)

At the 2006 UAW legislative conference, Clinton discussed the importance of labor standards in trade agreements and why she voted against CAFTA:

"ne of the reasons I voted against CAFTA is that it retreated from advances we were beginning to make at the end of the 1990s. We should never ever enter into a labor agreement in the 21st century that does not have labor and environmental standards in trade. Because if we dont have trade agreements that lift the bottom up, we will see a race to the bottom.

"And that means weve got to enforce the trade agreements that are already on the books, something that this administration refuses to do. That is why we cannot grant Thailand access to the U.S. auto market. That would be just like admitting that were dying and would just speed the suicide.

"This makes no sense at all. I believe in trade. But I believe in trade where its not only on a level playing field but where we are lifting up the world not driving the American worker and the American standard of living down." (UAW Legislative Policy Conference, 2/8/06)

At the same conference, she talked about the importance of retaining manufacturing jobs in the United States:

You know, we are in the position we find ourselves today: where we are losing good paying jobs, where wages are stagnant, where people are losing health care and pension security, and where we have a government that wants to undo the work of the 20th centuryAnd it just reinforced, for me, that whatever is wrong with American manufacturing can be fixed by doing what is right with American manufacturing and putting people in charge who know how to do that.

"We have competitive advantages that nobody in the world has. We have a strong, flexible, hard-working, experienced workforce. We just have to unleash you to be able to be competitive. We have a real commitment to innovation, but we dont get any support from our government on that front. We have elected officials who are willing to stand up and form a consensus about how to enhance manufacturing." (UAW Legislative Policy Conference, 2/8/06)

Because of the damage to our manufacturing sector, she said in New Hampshire:

"here is a sense among many that, after years of forward momentum, the country's progress has begun reversing. This is especially true for middle-class workers and people once employed in the manufacturing industry. 'They are running in place, but they feel like they are falling behind,' she said." (Rutland Herald, 2/12/07; Video: Keene, N.H., town hall, 2/11/07)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 02:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. What am I missing here?
The article poses that "the objective of the Democratic leaders seems clear: to marginalize fair-trade dissenters (by including strong new language calling for enforceable labor and environmental rights, and activists are rightly celebrating that advance?), coax the party into approving more trade agreements (with Peru and Panama--trivial in size and economic impact?), grant renewed fast-track authority to the President (I did not see that provision in the article or any other news sources I found on this agreement - it would be bad, if true).

We seem to be opposing fair trade deals with two fairly small countries. If we support fair trade, and that is a big "if" for some, I don't see how we oppose this. Sure we could hold out for promises on the Doha round or no "new trade deals, for instance, until business endorses universal healthcare or accepts new controls on outsourcing and offshore financial schemes. Or dozens of other progressive reforms."

Or we could just come out and say honestly that we don't want any more trade deals period, if that is what we want. Let's just not say we are in favor of fair trade, but oppose any specific fair trade deals, because we didn't get enough other reforms to go with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Here is how I see it ...
Edited on Thu May-17-07 02:21 PM by primative1
The foundation is rotten, the joists and all the beams are decayeing, the entire first floor is covered with garbage and debris and somewhere amid the fetid rubble our leadership has gone to work on a new extension to the building that they promise us will be an improvement even though they have told us this time and time again with their previous construction.
I think its time we demand that they condemn the building and begin building an entirely new one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I'm Going to Say It ONCE AGAIN! Writing, Calling & Blogging Does
not seem to get the job done for Americans who just want to live a decent life. A life where you can look FORWARD to a FUTURE because you "worked & played by the rules!"

And I know many think that REVOLUTION isn't the answer, but I'm sorry unless and until we have a MASSIVE PROTEST about far too many issues, even Democrats keep rolling in the muck!

I DO realize they are Ham-Strung because of the Senate and the one vote margin, but as one who didn't think IMPEACHMENT was an answer to our problems, I now am completely ON-BOARD and we need to kick them out.

The Idiot is simply sticking his stinking Ass in our faces and NOTHING we do by sitting on ours makes on whit ot difference! I bet he laughs out loud every single day even with all the turmoil around him. HE CARES NOT, HE holds ALL the CARDS and BFEE just keeps ignoring subpoena after subpoena and WILL NOT comply with the Laws Of This Nation until it goes to the Supreme Court!! And then, when they get there... well guess what? THEY WIN AGAIN!!


They have THEM in their pockets too!

REVOLUTION!! That's the only answer I see! I think bloggers have been effective in bringing issues out in the open, but still things aren't changing in any substantial way that I can see! Democrats in Power or not!!

From listening to Washington Journal every morning on C-Span... many many people want Ron Paul as a candidate, Democrats, Independents AND Repukes alike!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Ah ... Viva le revelusion ...
I just dumped out my ashtray in the wal mart parking lot. How will you help the cause? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
18. CUTE! I've Actually Gone To Almost Every Rally Around My
area, and several more in D.C.! But NONE of them were MASSIVE enough to make a DENT, nor even to get much coverage.

Illegal aliens get more coverage than we do, and I'm not exactly one of those who wants to kick them all out! I'm not crazy about the bill that is being proposed as I think there should be much more focus on Corporation and their employee hires, but I don't think my teeny-weeney voice is being heard.

And as far as doing WalMart stuff, I've done MUCH WORSE... and my daughter has me beat all to hell! I have to HOLD HER BACK before they come and pick her up and stick her in the slammer!

BOOTS STOMPING is about all I feel will get noticed, if at all! Still, I think if we simply ROSE UP in a massive way it would be More4e effective!

Just MY Opinion!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I'm missing the same thing that you are, apparently.
If we support fair trade, I don't see anything wrong with Rangel's provisions. You're right to ask if this is a question of supporting fair trade vs no trade with these countries at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Rangel's provisions seem perfectly reasonable
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unlawflcombatnt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Peru + Panama = 10 million more workers for Americans to compete with
Edited on Thu May-17-07 03:42 PM by unlawflcombatnt
The "smallness" of these trade deals is usually defined as the size of their export markets, which is strongly related to their exchange rate GDP. In this case, their combined GDP are $92 billion ($0.092 trillion), or 0.7% of the US's $13 trillion GDP.

What's ignored, however, is the "size" of the new labor market available to American Corporate outsourcers. In the case of Peru & Panama, the combined labor force size is 10.6 million. The U.S. Labor Force size is roughly 150 million. The addition of Peruvian & Panamanian workers increases the size of the labor force available to American multinationals by 7%, or 10 times as much as it increases the consumer market size (of only 0.7%)

(Population & GDP information on Peru & Panama can be found at the following CIA World Fact links:
Peru
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-fact...

Panama
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-fact... )

This may be a "small" deal when it comes to potential US exports. But it's not a "small" deal when it comes to American workers, by increasing American worker competition for jobs by 7%. For American workers, it is 10 times as big a deal.

For American workers, this is a losing proposition. Increasing the effective labor force size available to American business will decrease both American employment AND wages.

Of course, it's a great deal for Corporate America over the short-term, because it will further suppress wages and reduce labor costs (and increase profit margins). In the long-run, however, it will reduce the consumer income necessary to purchase production. In the long-run it's a bad deal for all. It's just one more step in the Globalization-induced race to the bottom.

Why any Democrat would support this is beyond comprehension.

unlawflcombatnt

Economic Populist Forum


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I responded to your similar post below. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unlawflcombatnt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
14. Peru & Panama-GDP addition vs. Labor Force addition
There were some good suggestions in the article such as
"No new trade deals, for instance, until business endorses....accepts new controls on outsourcing and offshore financial schemes...."

And

"cap the swollen US trade deficits--stop the bleeding--and develop a more balanced international trade regime. Second, use the tax code to get control of US multinationals and force them to align with the nation's economic interests. Third, force the reform of one-sided international institutions like the WTO and IMF so they will serve people and societies, not just capital and corporations...."

However, I think the article understates the potential damage to American workers from free trade "agreements" with Peru and Panama. The combined, exchange rate GDP of both countries is only $92 billion, or $0.092 trillion. This is 0.7% of the US's $13 trillion GDP. Even if the entire GDP of both countries went to purchase American goods, it could only add +0.7% to our GDP. (Needless to say, only a fraction of that GDP could ever be devoted to purchasing American imports.)


In contrast, the total combined labor forces of Panama and Peru are 10.6 million. This is 7% of the 150 million U.S. labor force. Thus, unrestricted job outsourcing to Peru & Panama, the available labor force to American multinationals could be expanded by 7%. Compare this with the maximum expansion of the consumer market (from Peru & Panama) of only +0.7%. The potential expansion of the labor force that American workers must compete in is 10 times as much as the expansion of the consumer sales market expansion.

(Population & GDP information on Peru & Panama can be found at the following CIA World Fact links:
Peru
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-fact...

Panama
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-fact... )

On the basic numbers alone, regardless of any labor or wage standards, a free trade "agreement" is a bad deal for American workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I respect your honesty, even if I don't agree with your position.
As I understand your point, any trade deal with Panama or Peru (or any other Third World country?) is a bad deal for American workers. Even with environmental and labor agreements incorporated into the deals, hence the "fair trade" designation, their wage rates are still going to be a fraction of the more prosperous American worker and difficult for our workers to compete with in an era of outsourcing and offshoring.

I just do not agree with the idea of not trading with the Third World, even though they do have the "advantage" of low wage rates resulting from poverty and few economic opportunities. The only way their people will have a better future is through having more economic opportunities and international trade is one, though not the only, way to help achieve this. I will say that from an American workers perspective, you present a convincing case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. This entire topic of trade is misleading ...
Edited on Thu May-17-07 04:03 PM by primative1
Its being twisted ... No one will jump up and say trade is bad. We have traded since the beginning of time. But what we continuously do is set up "trade agreements" with countries that HAVE NOTHING TO TRADE except for access to their repressed labor markets.
Thus the concept of trade is done without any consideration for those effected. Our government trades our livelihood in exchange for their governments permit to exploit their workers. Its a win-win except for those who are NEVER invited to the table.


ON EDIT ..

I just got a heads up on this one, the imperative for this deal was political and not economic, it is intended to preserve the EMPIRES footprint on the region in the face of the onslaught of influence being exerted by the EVIL hugo chavez ....
now that sounds consistent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Much of the Third World has nothing to trade except their labor,
except for the few who are blessed with oil, diamonds, or other natural resources that have not benefited the masses of people in those countries.

Whether the labor markets in the Third World are "repressed" or "depressed", there is some hope that their economic conditions will improve over time with trade and other changes, just like China and India are finally making some progress towards providing some level of material prosperity for their people.

I am not privy to the "heads up" you just received so I can't comment on that, but I do favor trading with the Third World, even that large part of it that can only export that which their labor produces, rather than any natural resource that we happen to want. It does not guarantee progress for the poor there, but it improves the chances for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I suppose it depends on your perspective ..
Wether or not we care to admit it, labor is now just another commodity to be traded on the global open market. Hoo-rah ..
Maybe in 3 or 4 generations this "leveling" will be a good thing. If history teaches us anything, probably not.
But in the meantime its just not very easy to watch the standard of living that we have LABORED our entire lives to achieve. traded away in the name of world betterment when the only tangible result we can see is rising corporate profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PBass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Not sure if I have a good handle on this story,
but I am truly disturbed that this is being described as a "SECRET DEAL" with the White House.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unlawflcombatnt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Very Well Put
"But what we continuously do is set up "trade agreements" with countries that HAVE NOTHING TO TRADE except for access to their repressed labor markets."

That's excellent. That's the best description I've ever read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
25. It is just this sort of thing that will keep us from winning
elections at the Congressional Level. The Dems had better wake
up. Rank and file voters--average voters are not as tolerant
as we are. If Dems are going to give me the shaft on this
they are no different than Republicans. I will vote with the
Republicans.

You cannot continously talk Middle Class and Vote Corporatist.

The News is on TV 24-7--Someone tell Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-22-07 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
26. Lou Dobbs Had Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) expressing their frustration over this
Remember all the talk of supporting America and shining the sunlight on the deals by the new leadership? According to these two Democratic Congressional members it is bull. Back room deals leading to Bush gaining fast track authority. This was discussed on Lou Dobbs tonight. Dobbs is the only broadcast on the major media that tells us in nonpartisan terms what is really going on.

Quote: Reps. Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) are outraged over Democratic leaders' free trade deal with the Bush administration. They join us to discuss why the plan is bad for middle class Americans.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight /



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 15th 2017, 04:51 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC