The time is now...to eradicate any and all "free-trade" platforms within the Democratic party

[brentspeak]

I held my nose, and advocated solidarity with the DLC-types within the Democratic party, up through Election Day, because I knew that some of them would have to be re-elected for the Democrats to achieve a Congressional majority.

So now that the Democrats do have that Congressional majority, I say: hammer down on all party platforms that call for expanding and retaining "free-trade" agreements. These agreements -- NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, etc. -- have been a fantastic boon for the top 10% in this nation, and a total, unmitigated disaster for everyone else. The middle class is decimated. The blue-collar working class -- decimated. But we still have plutocrats from the right, and neo-liberals from the left clamor for more.

The latest neo-liberal specious argument in favor of "free trade"? "Oh, it would be 'racist' for the United States to even think of imposing effective tariffs on countries like China and India. Tee hee!"

Oh, how enlightened! So you, Mr.Socially-Enlightened Well-Off Neo-Liberal, who recycles his bottles, supports gay and women's rights, and has a career completely immune from outsourcing, and who is, in all likelihood, directly financially benifitting from 14-year-old Chinese kids working 16-hour days for 75 cents/hour to make cheap, plastic junk, can wag your effete finger at all the American "racists" not in your McMansion-gated community who rightfully demand that their lives not become one of $10-and-less/hour in occupations far beneath their skill levels -- you can take your DLC Progressive Policy Institute claptrap, move out of the country, over to India, and live among the people that you're crying crocodile tears over.

Run these "free-trade" scum out of the party.

[Mojambo]

1. Damn straight. KnR. n/t

[pampango]

2. Mr. Socially-Enlightened Well-Off Neo-Liberal scum reporting.

I meet most of your criteria except for the gated community thing. Our little town doesn't have any of those.

You want effective tariffs against China and India. How about Mexico, South Korea, and the rest of Asia, Africa and Central and South America? We will need tariffs against them, too, or the multinational corporations will use their low wage workers to pick up the export opportunities left by the Chinese and Indian workers that we have put out of work with our tariffs. It seems to me that all of these countries are "brown" or "black." Are there some "white" countries to which you would apply tariffs, as well?

You may claim that your motives are purely economic and intended to benefit the American worker, with no racist intent. I have no reason to doubt that, but would point out that the effect of these tariffs would not be racially neutral.

[brentspeak]

3. So you LIKE that Chinese employees work 14-16 hour shifts, in filthy conditions, for pennies/day?

You support trade policies which have made those kind of 3rd World working conditions possible?

And the fact that countless African-American and Hispanic (and white) workers in major cities thoughout the U.S. have had their livelihoods displaced, just so those "brown" and "black" people in far-off nations could treated even more like slaves?

Well, you're the one who brought up the 'race' card.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. He worries about "brown" and "black", but could care less about "yellow"? n/t

[pampango]

5. Actually, I have always wondered why they call Asians "yellow".

None of them comes very close to that hue.

[pampango]

7. I have to become more careful when I type.

I didn't realize that I was portraying myself as an apologist for exploitation. Let me type very carefully. Would I be happier if Chinese and Indians had higher wages and better working conditions? Sure. I believe that they will achieve those things as their countries develop and their people demand them, just as American wages and working conditions improved greatly during the 20th century, as our economy developed.

If it were possible for me to snap my fingers and produce First World wages and working conditions in the Third World, I would do it. Unfortunately, conditions in the Third World are generally not very good - at work, at home, at the market, at school, etc. That is why it is the Third World. (You don't have to keep calling them slaves, however.)

I believe that the people of the Third World need access to the markets of the First World to spur their growth and alleviate the abject poverty that so many endure. We could build barriers to that trade and tell them to just produce goods and services for themselves (kind of a "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" theory).

I agree with you that we would benefit greatly from that. Since we have such a big consumer market, we would have plenty of factories and service centers coming here to supply that market. I am not so sure who would want to build a factory in the Third World when the only market available is in that country which, by definition, has little money.

If that is all you care about, more power to you. We all have a right to our own opinion. Build those high tariff walls against the Third World. Just be sure to antagonize the "white" countries of the world with high tariffs. We are the world's greatest exporter and most of those go to the First World. We wouldn't want to lose all of the employment that goes with those exports.

[rman]

10. If corporations can broker deals with governments

of developing nations - deals that greatly benefit those corporations, at the expense of the local population - the population can not develop while those wages stay that low, and the wages are low in part because weak worker rights are part of the deal.
.. anyway, if corporations can do that then why can't governments of the wealthy nations broker deals that include a decent minimum wage, worker rights and environmental protection? That's not happening because it is not as profitable to the big transnational corporations as these so-called "free-trade" deals are.

[Solon]

15. Exactly, this type of stuff is plain to see in some nations with Sweatshops...

Like in Central America or Western Africa. However, even in nations that are "success" stories for free trade, like Taiwan, its not all its cracked up to be. Many workers of electronics in Taiwan aren't allowed to have lunch breaks, so are forced to eat their lunches and snacks at workstations, all of it next to caustic chemicals and vapors. This leads to a host of medical problems, organ damage, particularly of the liver, etc.

Yet people consider this a success of "free trade", forgive me for not jumping up and down with joy.

[pampango]

18. I certainly would not argue that corporations benefit from building

factories and service centers in the Third World, but it is not always at the expense of the local population. I have inlaws that work at a call center in Manila. To them it is a great job, paying twice what they can make elsewhere and with good working conditions. (It's even worth it to them to work at night rather than a standard day job.) The main reason wages are low in the Third World is that there are not enough jobs for way too many people. The old supply and demand problem.

We could, indeed, negotiate deals with other countries that include whatever requirements we wish. Of course, if we set their minimum wage, worker rights laws, and pollution regulations, they would have the right to negotiate concessions on our part as well. Of course, we have much more economic power than they do, so we could pretty much impose any conditions that we wanted to.

We would also have to police the laws that we encouraged their governments to enact, otherwise they would have no effect. How would we police the minimum wage law and worker rights laws in China or Bangladesh? Should we set the minimum wage in every country in the world? Should it be the same everywhere or different in China than it is in Mexico or Nigeria?

[rman]

101. "Not always" but usually at the expense of the local population

The problem with globalization and "free trade" is not the cases were it works as it's supposed to.

We -are- setting minimum wage standards etc in 3rd world nations. Or more accurately: we allow corporations to set the minimum wage.
These are problems that we helped create, and now certain people argue these problems can't be solved.

[Solon]

19. You do realize that American wages and working conditions didn't improve till...

a bloodletting was done, right? How many workers died during the Robber Baron era again? It wasn't until unions started striking, and getting shot, by the U.S. army and Pinkerton's assholes that change started taking place. It was slow, too slow, to be frank, but with a combination of good ole fashioned rabble rousing and lobbying Congress, labor conditions had improved.

However, this was at a time when protectionism and sovereignty was respected, at least in regards to trade, and democracy was allowed, if on a limited level, in this country. However, you cannot say the same of China, where the ONLY union allowed is the government run one, and even though its a Communist controlled country, I don't think they have their workers best interests at heart.

India is a little more complicated, thankfully, they are a democracy, and, unlike what many think, they haven't adopted free trade completely wholesale. They were careful to free up the state run economy, however, even with that, there are problems, the rich-poor gap is increasing, wages are becoming stagnant, and working conditions are poor for too many workers.

Even then, Free Trade can become a hindrance to the improvement of working conditions. When nations like Mexico, who was under corrupt one-party rule at the time, sign treaties like NAFTA, which actually allow corporations to PREVENT countries from protecting their workers, what can the workers do?

What are nations like Mexico, or Guatemala supposed to do in situations where, due to treaty obligations, they CAN'T do shit to improve working conditions?

[eridani]

98. Also, the best place to live in India is communist-run Kerala

First world literacy, life expectancy, female/male ratios--all on $300 per capita per year.

[Zhade]

36. If by "greatest' you mean "largest", Germany is actually the largest exporter of goods to the world.

NT!

[Leopolds Ghost]

47. The ONLY reason 1st World Economies developed is because of Strong Industrial Policy - Tariffs.

The Chinese have practiced a one-sided protectionism for decades, which worked for multinationals because they were moving their factories INTO China, where a huge internal low-wage market was capable of producing goods for a comparatively small high-wage market in the US.

When I say comparatively small, keep in mind that the US is only so huge because of geography. Population-wise, Japan and England and Germany and France and even Iran house a significant fraction of the US population in much smaller areas, and they are markets, too.

But we are the "rich" market because of the trickle-down economy -- the multinational investors live on the coasts and our entire economy is now based on servicing the needs of the investor class in those million dollar condos. The businesses they invested in -- that produce our goods -- are all overseas.

We are a vast company town feeding off of natural resources elsewhere -- and China is bleeding us dry, like one of those white suns that is feeding off the energy of a dying, red giant.

[eridani]

97. Look at all the former Third World countries that actually improved their situations

Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan. All had very, very strict currency control and high tariffs. They subsidied export-oriented industry while strictly regulating imports and eschewing foreign investments. The US used to be a Third World country, but we successfully developed behind high tariff walls. Explain why the same thing wouldn't work for other countries, if you can.

[pampango]

109. I think that we are in agreement for the most part.

I did not mean to say that Third World countries would not benefit from some level of protection from imports as a part of their development process, just like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. (Extremely high tariffs in these countries is not good, I think, because it leads to inefficient industries that cannot compete internationally and "crony capitalism.")

My contention is that the Third World needs access to First World markets, in order to develop more quickly and escape from endemic poverty, just as those three Asian countries have done. I do not believe that our government should put up import tariffs on goods coming from China, India or other Third World countries, because that would slow down their development in the directions of becoming like South Korea, Taiwan or Japan, in the coming decades.

[eridani]

126. Fair trade is about far more than tariffs

They are only one possible tool. The issue is that current "free" trade rules privilege intellectual property and corporations at the expense of labor (human garbage to be disposed of in the race to the bottom) and the environment (that annoying "externality").

[Odin2005]

125. Exactly.

I've been reading an excellent book called The Wealth and Poverty of Nations by David S. Landes, and Landes states that protectionism was a vital part of industrialization for most developed countries. Without protectionism a developing country is at the mercy of what economists call http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_Advantage">Comparative Advantage, which in many cases inhibits industrialization according to Landes.

[sendero]

106. You clearly..

... don't understand the difference between "free trade" and "fair trade".

Do you think the Chinese are allowing open access to their markets?

You sound like a delusional Libertarian. I'd say more, but I don't want to break the board rules.

[pampango]

107. You may be right...

Feel free to straighten me out. "Fair trade" to me involves incorporating worker rights, working conditions, pollution regulation and such issues into international trade agreements.

"Free trade" concentrates more on lowering barriers to international trade, such as tariffs and quotas. "Do you think the Chinese are allowing open access to their markets?" Are you arguing that China should lower their trade barriers (a great free trade position) or that we should increase our barriers against them (a great anti-trade position).

Oh and thanks for respecting the board rules. I will add "delusional Libertarian" to list of titles I have earned in this thread. (Goes with "spouter of RW taking points".) If I keep discussing issues, and not judging the people I am conversing with, I may graduate to the dreaded "freeper" or, if I really get on a roll, "fascist".;) It seems that name-calling is a sign of intellectual achievement that I have not been able to attain, but I am working on it - you, you "spouter of LW taking points." Hey, that felt pretty good. I'm learning.

[sendero]

137. Please do add..

... "delusional Libertarian" to you list, because that is exactly what you sound like whether you like it or not.

Do you think that if we ask the Chinese nicely to open their markets that they will?

[pampango]

138. Will do. If I were a Libertarian, I would take it as a compliment.

;)

Everything is subject to negotiation.

[Telly Savalas]

59. If tariffs are imposed, what happens to those Chinese employees?

[Greyhound]

8. Hiding behind accusations of racism, while ignoring which Americans

are hurt the worst by these abominations, only expose you for the hypocrite you are.

Not that you'd be interested, but several of the proposed fair trade plans out there do not impose the fees on other nations, but on the products, which would have the effect of imposing the fees on many amerikan companies as well.

[pampango]

11. Imposing fees (tariffs) on products rather than countries would be an

improvement. If you are talking about tariffs across the board on all products imported into the country then that would not have racist overtones. All countries exporting to us would be subject to the same tariff. I was responding to a proposal to put tariffs specifically on products that came from two large Third World countries. (Of course, across the board tariffs on all products from everywhere invites retaliation and we are the world's largest exporter which creates lots of jobs.)

I have not seen the data you are referencing regarding those hurt worst. I know that minorities suffer, as do whites. Lower skilled workers suffer disproportionately, though computer programmers, skilled assembly line workers and many other higher skilled workers suffer as well. If I am a hypocrite for putting forth the case for the poor workers of the Third World (invariably nonwhite), while not acknowledging the impact on minorities in our country, then so be it.

[Greyhound]

13. You responded, thank you, I may have misjudged you. Anyone that is willing

to discuss is, in my book anyway, worth the effort. My apologies.

I have to go right now, but I'm coming back here later, and if you would like to talk about what is really going on, as opposed to what we've been told, maybe we can reach agreement.

[Solon]

16. You don't give a flying fuck about third world workers...

The way "free trade" is practiced today allows for armed guards in factories for NIKE in Central America, where 12 year old girls are FORCED to work for over 12 hours a day, for PENNIES, not even a living wage in their OWN damned countries, and they are supposed to provide for entire FAMILIES on those shit wages. To be frank, you disgust me. :puke:

[pampango]

24. You saw right through me, man (or woman). I don't care about

Third World workers. I just like to read my own posts. It makes me feel important.

I defer to your knowledge of NIKE factories in Central America. I do know that all factories in the Third World are not as bad as that. Conditions there have never been great - whether you are talking about working conditions, housing conditions, shopping conditions, etc. I have lived in the Third World, in Asia, and know that all factories are not great, not are they all terrible. In general they pay better than the factories that existed there before. They do that so they can attract workers and keep them once they are trained. Do they pay a lot by our standards? No, just by local standards.

[Solon]

26. Uhm, OK, so you think conditions like this are fine?

It was around this time, however, that mandarins from Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China began setting up textile factories on Saipan and importing labor from the mainland, as well as from Bangladesh and the Philippines, to cut and stitch cloth for garment makers including JC Penney, the Gap, Tommy Hilfiger, Liz Clairborne, Jones New York, Abercrombie & Fitch, Levi Strauss, Nautica and many others -- a virtual Who's Who of designer labels. The idea was to slip under the radar of U.S. quotas and duties, which would cost the manufacturers millions more if the garments were made outside U.S. territory. Garments from Saipan are made from foreign cloth, assembled by foreign workers on U.S. soil and labeled "Made in the USA."

And they are made cheaply. Wages in the factories average about $3 per hour -- more than $2 less than the U.S. minimum wage of $5.15. No overtime is paid for a 70-hour work week. But that's hardly the worst of it. Far away from the swank beachside hotels, luxurious golf courses and the thousands of Japanese tourists snorkling around sunken U.S. Navy landing craft in the clear waters, some 31,000 textile workers live penned up like cattle by armed soldiers and barbed wire, and squeezed head to toe into filthy sleeping barracks, all of which was documented on film by U.S. investigators last year.

The unhappy workers cannot just walk away, either: Like Appalachian coal miners a generation ago, they owe their souls to the company store, starting with factory recruiters, who charge Chinese peasants as much as $4,000 to get them out of China and into a "good job" in "America." Their low salaries make it nearly impossible to buy back their freedom. And so they stay. The small print in their contracts forbids sex, drinking -- and dissent.

Link: http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/04news.html

This is from Salon, thankfully, you can actually view their archives.

If you want, I can give you examples of Mexican Maize farmers that are kicked off their land, and then work in American owned factories for LESS pay than they had before, or about textile workers in West Africa and Central America, most of which are CHILDREN, etc.

[frankenforpres]

45. can you explain to me ...

how imposing tariffs will alleviate these conditions. i think it is a seperate issue.


my point is: would you be pro free trade if third world workers werent "exploited"

[Solon]

51. Tariffs alone? No, I don't think so...

In case you missed my other posts, I didn't advocate a complete return to isolationism, at least for the United States. Should other countries follow such examples? That's the real question. If a nation that has an "emerging" economy has the same development, especially of indigenous businesses, stifled, due to free trade agreements, then maybe they should be the ones practicing protectionism.

The problem with "free trade" is that it isn't FREE at all. Freeing up capital and goods, while leaving out workers, isn't free trade.

[pampango]

48. The answer is "No, I don't think conditions such as you cited

at the NIKE factory in Central America are acceptable." What I do not accept is the implication that all factories in the Third World are as bad as the examples that you have cited and others that you could cite. If I believed that every factory in the Third World was as bad as you indicate, then I would oppose that method of development as well.

How do you propose that the Third World develop, if they do not have access to the markets of the First World? Without that access few will build factories and service centers there, if their only markets is the local poor population. They could, of course, "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps."

We could cite abuses of the food stamp system, but none of us want to do away with it. The abuses need to be corrected and the system improved. Are there abuses in the international trading system? Sure, but don't tear down the progress that has been made in places like China and India. I know that none of us here consider the workers of the Third World to be our enemies, but so many seem willing to put up barriers that will eliminate their jobs and halt the progress that is being made in reducing poverty in the developing world.

[Solon]

52. First things first...

This isn't about market access, most nations that have factories in them under free trade agreements are factories that are foreign owned, and any capital that is produced in said factories are then transported OUT of the nation they were produced in back to the nation where the company in question is headquartered.

This wouldn't be a problem, normally, if the GOODS stayed within the nation they were produced in, similar to how Japanese and Korean car makers open factories here for consumers here. However, its quite different when the products themselves are also exported, along with the capital. My question is, what is left when the factory closes and moves to a cheaper location?

[Greyhound]

6. To the Greatest page with you.

:kick: & R

[mod mom]

9. Exactly. rec'd

[Skidmore]

12. Amen!! and Hallelujah!!

And we need to pay attention to candidates who are affiliated with the DLC and Third Way in the upcoming election.

As I noted the other day, I have made the decision that I will absolutely not support Hillary Clinton if she makes it through the primaries because of her affiliation with these groups and her war stance. I might as well vote for a Republic, which I won't do. I will, if she is the candidate, write in someone else.

[eallen]

14. You think they have been a disaster for our trading partners?

The funny thing is that those who most dislike trade have no alternative to offer the world as a whole to increase its welfare. They think globally about everything except economics. I understand the need to tie trade to other concerns, from pollution to human rights. But at bottom, trade is good.

And how are you going to run me out of the party, anyway?

:hippie:

[Solon]

17. Depends one what you mean by "trading partners"....

Let's see, corrupt governments usually get the bribes and money, corporations get increased profits, the folks on the factory room floor get death and suffering. I don't see where "trade is good".

[eallen]

20. It makes sense if you think trade is evil, then you'd think factories evil, also.

See, I understand those who want factories to be safe and who want new industry in a nation to raise wage rates there.

I don't know what to say to those who think trade and industry and factories are evil.

:hippie:

[Solon]

21. I don't consider them to be automatically good...

By their very nature, a factory would end up being a place where workers are exploited UNLESS protections are put in place for the WORKERS. Call them a necessary evil, if you will, we need factories, that is true, but a factory without legal protections of workers is simply a place of wage slavery and exploitation.

Same for trade, "free trade" as it is marketed today, is simply a system put in place to allow for the maximum exploitation of workers without providing them ANY PROTECTIONS AGAINST ABUSE! In that case, yes trade is EVIL!

[eallen]

22. I suspect you think business, generally, is a necessary evil.

Perhaps, instead of those who think business is vital leaving the Democratic Party, those who think it is the source of all problems should join the Socialist Workers Party?

:hippie:

[Solon]

23. Business is a necessary evil, otherwise regulations on them wouldn't be necessary...

Actually, it would probably be more accurate to say businesses are amoral by default. Also, before you knock socialist parties, which party adopted the platform of the Socialist Party USA back in the late 1920s again?

[eallen]

30. Regulating something doesn't mean it is evil, just that it can have risks or excesses.

We regulate the production of food, the operation of water supplies, and the construction of buildings. Does that make food, water, and architecture evil?

My view is that that business, industry, and trade are good and vital for society, as are food, water, and architecture, which in the modern world all are products that result from the practice of the first. That doesn't mean there can't be excesses or problems or risks in the way they are practiced. So yes, I support certain kinds of regulations and a political process that takes account of things that business by itself might not. That's why I'm here, instead of over in freeperville. Food is good. Salmonella sucks. Conservatives think there is no need for food regulation. Liberals think there is. Socialists would destroy the local HEB, replacing them all with some government-run store or collection of people's coops. I'll take the regulated but still a business HEB.

(BTW, one of my favorite local stores is a coop. But it's a coop in capitalist economy, which is a large part of why it does so well.)

:hippie:

[Solon]

34. If you noticed, I said that its more accurate to call businesses amoral...

In other words, they lack morals as we would define them, similar to wild animals.

Same could be said for food, water, and architecture, no one calls Notre Dame a "moral" building because of how its made, nor whether its "good" or "evil" for the same reason.

Also, its interesting that you use water in your example, in the United States, most water "companies" are outright owned and run by the cities and counties they service. Same for Natural Gas. Being "natural" monopolies, this is a given, however, this hasn't stopped some "free traders" and pro-free market folks from advocating privatization of these services, usually with detrimental results. Look up what happened in Atlanta, Georgia, or what happened in Bolivia, where they actually made it illegal to collect RAINWATER of all things, so an American company could charge whatever they want for WATER, and that was part of a free trade and loan agreement.

See, classic example of excess, as you put it, and let me tell you, it backfired, badly, otherwise Morales wouldn't be in office right now.

The problem with "free trade" as practiced today is that it takes things to the extreme right, to free market Libertarianism, and is detrimental to the folks who live in nations that sign such agreements, like Argentina.

There is nothing wrong with a little socialism, most socialists have no interest in nationalizing widget factories, but we would like to see them unionized.

[rman]

114. Trade -can be- evil

Do you think trade can only be good?

[Zhade]

25. HEAR, HEAR! Well-said, brentspeak!

Hell yes!

K/R for you, and I never thought I'd say THAT, lol!

[robcon]

27. Free trade should be a bedrock principle

of the Democratic Party.

[Solon]

28. If it also was combined with recognized international standards for labor rights and enviromental...

protections, along with allowing the free movement of people, then I would agree, but, until that happens, I don't think so.

[Zhade]

29. I'm pretty sure Robconservative doesn't mean with those protections.

He supports the exploitation of third-world workers, even to the point of abuse and restraint as in China.

[RB TexLa]

31. And not being engaged with them economically will give us exactly what

leverage to work on human rights? But what the hell, they aren't "Merican workers," so who cares, right? The country with the largest economy in the world might lose a little over a certain amount of time while helping to raise others up, how could anyone support that? Good to know the KnowNothing party lives. Isolationism belongs in the ash bin of history.

[Zhade]

32. If it actually raised people up, instead of exploiting them, you'd have a point.

NT!

[Solon]

38. Right now we have no leverage because of the way "free trade" is practiced...

No offense, but you are not exactly rational on this issue, assuming all who complain about "free trade" are isolationists.

Many of us want FAIR trade, trade agreements that have worker's rights being protected, where countries are free to regulate business that do business in their nations, any way they see fit, to protect their own citizens. We want agreements where human rights are paramount, rather than profits for multi-nationals as it is now.

[Elwood P Dowd]

39. NAFTA has been a disaster for Mexico

and CAFTA will be a disaster for Central America. These fake free trade deals are designed to benefit certain corporations and investors. They do nothing for the workers.

[Elwood P Dowd]

37. NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc. are not free trade

They are outsourcing/investment scams written by the very corporations and investors who plan on making a killing.

You are not a Democrat, so why do you continue to post your worthless crap on DU?

[Solon]

41. Exactly, that's the reason why I put apostrophes whenever I mention "Free Trade"...

How can it be called Free Trade if it ONLY frees up capital and goods but not workers and people?

[Elwood P Dowd]

44. Yep

David Ricardo, the father of free trade, would never call those deals free trade. It's not free trade when you ship both labor and capital out of the USA in order to pay slave wages and avoid environmental, labor, and consumer protections.

[Zhade]

46. Some people here don't understand the slave wage issue.

They need to educate themselves.

[Elwood P Dowd]

49. It's actually better than owning slaves

Slaves cost money. You have to pay the purchase price, then you have to furnish them with food, clothing, housing, and medical care or you lose your investment. It's much cheaper to pay Mexicans $1.00 an hour or Chinese 50 cents an hour.
Sad isn't it.

[pampango]

60. Can you put a number on a "slave wage"?

Is it $1 an hour? $2 and hour? $0.50 an hour? Does it depend on the country or what you or I think people in a particular country should be paid? My guess is that there are those who would define any wage paid to a worker in a Third World country as a "slave wage" because in the US that is what it would be.

What if I had the means to build a factory in a previously "unexploited" country, say Cuba five years from now, and the existing Cuban factories were paying $1 an hour because people didn't have many economic choices. If I were to run my hypothetical factory with decent working conditions and paid $1.50 an hour, would I be accused of paying a slave wage? Would I have to pay $20 an hour to avoid such a designation? If so I would rather build my factory in Ohio closer to the market for my goods, but perhaps that is what some people want. More factories in the US and less in the Third World.

[Solon]

64. A slave wage is any wage that isn't enough to meet minimum requirements...

for cost of living. Being able to provide food, shelter, etc. There is no hard and fast number for this, even within the United States.

Look to Mexico as an example, since NAFTA was enacted, they have actually had wages SUPPRESSED to below cost of living expenses. Wages were never great in Mexico to begin with, but to see them decreasing isn't good either.

[pampango]

68. So a "slave wage" is anything less than a "living wage"?

As you point out, that is true of many many jobs in the US. So in a poor country with a low cost of living, a low wage by our standards would not necessarily be a "slave wage" if it was enough to meet the cost of living? Fair enough. (I realize that there is a lot of wiggle room in "minimum requirement" in the sense that it would vary from country to country and even among different regions of the same country, but it is a useful concept.)

[Solon]

75. Pretty much, yeah...

There is wiggle room, but not a whole lot. For example, a worker in the Midwest could live on 10 bucks an hour, and even support a family with it, but good luck trying to survive on that wage in Southern California or New York.

Another factor is income mobility, and the reason its called wage slavery. The cycle of poverty also includes debt, and that debt could be incurred in any number of ways. A farmer may end up with a bad harvest one year, or a worker gets laid off, etc. The problem is that when wages are stagnate, its almost impossible to get out of debt, and bankruptcy may not relieve you of that debt either.

This is a vicious cycle, and leads to poverty, homelessness, and, in some extreme cases, starvation.

The problem with free trade isn't every single individual abuse, but a combination of them. Countries like Mexico are now feeling the pinch of outsourcing, they already had a downward pressure on their wages, many Mexican businesses were destroyed or bought out by American, Canadian, or European businesses, and the middle class in Mexico is disappearing. In many towns, once the ONLY major source for employment closes, because a cheaper labor force exists elsewhere, the people in such towns are literally left with nothing.

[Zhade]

81. How about "the wages corporations pay to virtually enslave foreign workers".

Like the kind of rampant abuse as decribed in the thread.

[pampango]

100. I like that phrase even better. It is subjective enough that I can

can call any wage paid by any employer in any country a "slave wage". Plus it has "slave" in it, even though we are not talking about actual slavery (see the American South before the Civil War), so it has a great "zing" factor. I can see how that would be useful in discussing international trade.

[HughBeaumont]

111. Yeah.

I stuck that guy in the red X toilet long ago. I just got sick of his neo-lib "offshoring is GREAT" hit-and-run posting BS. Free Trade is not progressive policy.

[wuushew]

116. why?

it seems to me that reduction in commodity prices(if any) do not match the reduction in income from formerly domestic manufacturing jobs.

In addition free trade as it is practiced is not a win win scenario based on synergy and comparative advantage, it is the manufacture of identical products using identical machinery minus labor and regulation costs. Is it fair that a factory can move easier than labor pool that would work in it?

Also the rapid industrialization of the third world is in no way helpful to the reduction in greenhouse gases which is also a democratic plank. Industrialization of the third world should be forestalled until the first world has achieved a sustainable post-fossil fuel economy and can export the technology to those who demand it.

[pampango]

120. From a scientific point of view, I understand your point about

the rapid industrialization in the Third World is harmful to our greenhouse gas problem.

I am not sure, however, that is very moral to tell the Third World to freeze any economic progress and poverty alleviation, until the First World gets their act together on global warming. We, in the West, have achieve a standard of living that the poor in developing countries can only dream of. It is incumbent upon us to seriously control greenhouse gases, even if it impacts our standard of living somewhat, rather than tell the Third World that they will have to remain in poverty until we can stop bickering and actually do something to reverse global warming.

[piedmont]

128. Another post-and-run? Why bother?

[kiahzero]

33. LOL.

You're hilarious.

Oh, wait, you were serious. Well, you're still hilarious.

[RB TexLa]

35. I kept waiting for the phrase "There's colors dat don't run" to show up

:rofl:

[brentspeak]

43. s/del

[Redstone]

40. Bitter, much? Set up enough ad hominem attacks, and on strawmen at that?

"You, Mister yacketa yacketa..." That's a pretty damn high horse you're riding right there. Thank you SO much for the sermon.

We'll all try to conform to your dictates better than we've been doing. So sorry.

Redstone

[Leopolds Ghost]

42. For brentspeak to say this... the populists in the Democratic Party must band together.

:applause:

Et tu, brentspeak?

I remember the arguments you had with lefty populists like me,
and liberal non-populists who called you a DLC apologist.

[brentspeak]

55. The DLC's Ides of March is very much due.

[Zhade]

85. I'm not sure how to make this NOT sound like I'm a jerk...

...but THANK YOU.

I'm always happy when someone finally can't defend that organization anymore and says so in no uncertain terms. I applaud your stance, and your thread.

Here's hoping others continue to follow the ranks of ex-DLC defenders!

[Unvanguard]

50. Um... overgeneralizing a bit much there?

I'm not a "neoliberal" - I'm not sure it's possible to be more economically left-wing than me - but I still think that tariffs are an awful idea in First World countries.

Reducing the demand for products produced in the Third World will bring serious economic harm to those countries, imperiling their capability to develop and harming the welfare of their population. The double standard applied by the developed countries to the Third World - they must open their markets to foreign imports, but we can retain our tariffs and subsidies - plays a serious role in the maintenance of global economic inequality.

As for harming the US middle class, much of this will be offset by lower prices and increased foreign demand for US goods.

[Elwood P Dowd]

53. But the fake free trade agreements

are written to benefit a select group of corporations and investors. They could care less about our trading partners opening their markets by lowering tariffs. All they care about is moving labor and capital where they feel the most profits can be achieved.

I recently made an eBay sale to someone in Europe. The buyer instructed me to include an invoice with a sale price of $50.00 rather than the $800.00 selling price. He even agreed that it was his loss if I didn't insure the product and it was lost or damaged. He gambled. Why? Because the import duty was 35%. The exact same product shipped from his country to the USA has an import duty of only 5%. It's even worse with China. There are many products you ship there that have over 50% tariffs.

[brentspeak]

56. Thanks, Elwood

My posts have been leaning towards the scatter-shot blasts of rage category; yours' have actually included numbers and details.

[Unvanguard]

58. I'm not in favor of the current global economic system.

My only objection was to the proposal to impose tariffs.

[brentspeak]

54. *cough*, chuckle

1) I don't think you get it: the "double standard" you're talking is committed the other way around -- China and India hold punishing tariffs against the United States, while we, on the other hand, simply usher their cheaply-made junk products in through the front door.

2) The "welfare" of much of the working population in places like China and Indonesia -- under the free-trade scam -- is atrocious. Somewhere between slavery and indentured servitude.

3) "As for harming the US middle class, much of this will be offset by lower prices and increased foreign demand for US goods."

If my javascript wasn't disabled right now, for maintenance reasons, I'd include a half-a-page full of smileys, slapping the floor in hysterical laughter. You're trying to say that loss of the middle class' livelihoods will be made insignificant because the average Joe or Jane can buy plastic wastebaskets at Mall-Wart for 60 cents less than they would at the now-closed-down Main Street store? And besides the fact that you leave unexplained where this "increased foreign demand for US goods" is going to come from, you're forgetting an important something: where are the US factories to produce these US goods if they've been shipped overseas????

[Elwood P Dowd]

57. I continue to shake my head

Why are there some DUers who still haven't figured out this free trade scam?

[Unvanguard]

63. The scam of neoliberal global capitalism

is very familiar to me.

It is not the opposition to the present structures, but the proposed solutions, that I object to.

[pampango]

65. Well, the first reason is that we are just not as smart as you.

But I'm sure you had already figured that out.

The other reason is that we think that trade is a good thing; and that more trade is better than less trade. I realize that that is a debatable proposition (the biggest word I know), but it runs contrary to the belief that it is better to erect tariffs and other barriers to keep imports from Third World countries out. America should make and build what America consumes. Build those walls around the country. We can get along without the rest of the world, except for Canada, Europe and Australia. We don't mind trading with them, because they are more like us than those poor dirty Third World countries.

[Elwood P Dowd]

66. Your republican talking points don't cut it

and this debate is NOT about Third World vs First World. It's all about the trade policy benefiting a few at the expense of many.

[Solon]

67. One thing I'm puzzled about is why this always comes down to race with...

these free traders. They accuse us of racism while they reap the profits of taking advantage of poor brown folks. I'm surprised they aren't wondering why nations in South America are scrambling to reverse the damage of "free trade".

[Elwood P Dowd]

69. Repukes were actually calling dems racists during the NAFTA debate

in 1993. Repukes ALWAYS pull out the racism charge when free trade debates take place. That's why I think some of the free trade supporters on DU are actually repukes masquerading as democrats. Not saying all are, but I wouldn't doubt that some are.

[Unvanguard]

72. Absolutely. That is my main point.

Manifestations of economic nationalism, like tariffs, mistake the problem as a First World v. Third World problem by assuming that the problem is too much trade with the Third World.

It's not. The problem is that the present global economy is arranged according to the interests of the global elite. Economic nationalism is not what is necessary; a very different kind of globalization with the full and decisive participation of the world's people is.

[Zhade]

87. That requires worker protections, which some here seem not to like.

I mean, that's all I can figure out, given their insistence that making a few pennies more an hour is somehow an acceptable way for the exploited workers in those countries to live.

[Unvanguard]

89. Definitely. We need decent, strictly-enforced worker protections

in every trade agreement.

Not only that, but perhaps even more importantly, we need to continue the work of making the resistance to economic inequality and exploitation just as global as the institutions of inequality and exploitation are. That means international cooperation of labor unions, peasant organizations, and so on - exactly what we are beginning to see with the so-called "anti-globalization" movement.

[Zhade]

92. I don't think you're a conservative, fwiw.

If you ARE, get yourself to Hollywood, because that would mean you're a terrific actor.

[Elwood P Dowd]

94. They've become very creative

You should see the notes my nephew gave from a college repuke meeting. They go on progressive sites and pretend to be kind and considerate democrats and then slowly morph into pushing free trade, tax cuts for the rich, and other repuke agendas. This person posted many of their talking points on this thread.

[Unvanguard]

95. Not only do I oppose "free trade"

but I also oppose class society, and as such do not support an unequal distribution of wealth significant enough to generate a wealthy class to give tax cuts to in the first place.

Yeah, I see the Republican talking points everywhere. :eyes:

[pampango]

102. Thank you.

I started to take offense at being called a spouter of RW taking points, but then I realized that I was being "praised with faint damnation". Often I have seen accusations of "freeper" and, a little later, "fascist", once a discussion of an issue has reached a certain point.

Since I am only a "spouter", I accept your faint damnation. Can we get back to discussing the issue or does DU etiquette require me to cast some faint damnation back at you. Wouldn't want to appear to be a wimp.;)

PS I am saving my posts pushing for tax cuts for the rich (entrepreneurs), the "death tax", the constitutional amendment repeal that would allow a third term for our favorite guy, and a host of others for later, after I have established myself as a kind and considerate Democrat.

[Zhade]

86. I think you're smarter than you think we think you are.

But you're clearly not as informed on the subject, as your arguments have been broken down and defeated in this thread.

Ignorance is not shameful. I used to sound like you, then I learned. It's not a bad thing.

But you need to get away from the strawman arguments that we "don't like trade" and other nonsense.

[pampango]

103. I always wanted to compete in a game in which I could be a player

and also the scorekeeper. I realize that in your mind my arguments have been soundly defeated, so after declaring that IYHO you won and I lost, at least you could say "Good game, pampango. Better luck next time." Where I come from it is considered poor sportsmanship to tell you defeated opponent, "Having no "game" is not shameful. I used to play as badly as you do, but I got better. There is hope for you to become more like me if you just try hard enough."

Sorry about the strawman. (Sometimes you think you are making a point and instead you are making a strawman.) I meant that some don't like trade "with countries that do not reflect similar working conditions and wage scales to our own." Better or another strawman? (Only the strawman police know for sure.)

[Zhade]

133. I never said *I* won.

The majority of your arguments were addressed by others, who offered evidence to support their arguments, whereas you offered none.

[pampango]

139. Game. Set. Match.

Next time I want to keep score. Me thinks this judge was predisposed to one side of the game.

[Unvanguard]

62. No, actually I was talking about the greatest victims

of the present global trade regime - the people of Latin America and Africa. US and EU agricultural subsidies in particular - a classic protectionist policy - are quite devastating.

I agree that the welfare of much of the working populations in places like China and Indonesia is atrocious. US economic nationalism, however, is simply not a solution to this. The result will be unemployment for the workers currently employed in export-oriented industries, unemployment that will be excellent leverage for the rich elite in those countries to push wages even lower and make conditions even worse.

You're trying to say that loss of the middle class' livelihoods will be made insignificant because the average Joe or Jane can buy plastic wastebaskets at Mall-Wart for 60 cents less than they would at the now-closed-down Main Street store?

You are both exaggerating the costs (the "middle class" has not suddenly become unemployed) and ignoring the full scope of the benefits (they extend far further than "60 cents.")

And besides the fact that you leave unexplained where this "increased foreign demand for US goods" is going to come from,

Everywhere that lowers tariffs in conjunction with the US. These things are usually done in concert.

you're forgetting an important something: where are the US factories to produce these US goods if they've been shipped overseas????

Considering that US exports have been rising steadily, I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[Elwood P Dowd]

70. More republican talking points. You're being exposed

"Considering that US exports have been rising steadily, I don't think you have anything to worry about."

Much of the increase is from U-turn products being exported to US-owned factories located overseas. Very little of the increased exports are actually being purchased by consumers overseas. The Commerce Department is doing some serious book cooking, and the current account deficit is still growing. You do have the repuke talking points down pat though. I will give you that.

[Unvanguard]

71. As a Republican?

:rofl:

Like I said in my first reply, I'm not sure it is possible to be more economically left-wing than me... my preferred solution to the current problems with the global economy is putting the multinational corporations directly into the hands of the workers and the peasants of the world. "All power to the workers!" is not exactly a Republican talking point.

The Commerce Department is doing some serious book cooking

Do you have any evidence for that?

[Elwood P Dowd]

74. They count U-turn products as exports

"Do you have any evidence for that?"

If you are not a repuke, why do you even think the Bush Commerce Department might not be cooking the books? They cook the books on everything else.

[Unvanguard]

78. "They may be lying" is not the same as

"They are actually, unquestionably lying in every single thing they say."

Plenty of non-Republicans use the government's economic data; it isn't as if it has always, or even usually, suited the interests of the White House.

[Unvanguard]

80. From the Economic Policy Institute:

Exports of U.S. manufactured products have grown rapidly since 2002.

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_20070207

From an article that is hardly supportive of the present US trade policy, and whose whole point is to warn of the increasing trade deficit.

Are you going to maintain that an organization whose Board of Directors (http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/board) is full of labor union officials is just spewing Republican talking points?

[Elwood P Dowd]

82. They're only using govt figures on exports

There is no mention who is buying those exports. Hundreds of US companies are exporting products to foreign locations,
and those products are being used to manufacture finished goods that are shipped back into the US.

Why don't you go back to Free Republic where you belong?

[Unvanguard]

83. If accepting government figures on exports

makes me a right-winger, then is the EPI "right-wing" too? :eyes:

And does it matter who buys the exports? What matters is that the increase in US exports is making up some (not all) of the displacement caused by the increase in imports.

[Elwood P Dowd]

88. You are out in la-la land

"And does it matter who buys the exports?" It matters when the exports are used to manufacture products made overseas for export to the US. You start by sending the factory overseas. Then you send the parts suppliers overseas. Next you send engineering and design overseas.

There is no doubt in my mind you are a republican disrupter. I can't believe DU has let you hang around this long.

[Unvanguard]

90. I see how such a transfer of production

necessarily means an increase in imports that is greater than an increase in exports (because the value of the goods exported will never equal the value of the same goods imported after more labor has been inputed) but it still doesn't detract from my point that the increase in exports counteracts some of the increase in imports (and not all, probably not even most, exports are of this sort, either). And if everything were really being outsourced, we would not see any increase in exports.

I can't believe DU has let you hang around this long.

I don't know... perhaps because no one but you seriously believes that I am a Republican disruptor simply because I propose socialist internationalism as an alternative to protectionism?

:eyes:

[brentspeak]

76. Wait a minute -- you're a "Left-wing anarchist with communist tendencies" who

doesn't doubt the Bush White House's version of events?

[Unvanguard]

77. On occasion, yes.

In that I don't reject everything they say out of hand, especially when there are considerable political consequences for outright fraud (and the economic reports are carefully analyzed by plenty of people; it isn't as if they are just ignored.)

If there's convincing counter-evidence, of course I'll change my mind - I have little trust in their honesty, especially after Iraq.

Do you have any?

Edit: Where do you get YOUR economic data?

[Elwood P Dowd]

79. I'm not very smart

but I realize when someone is pissing in my pocket and trying to convince me it's raining.....if you know what I mean.
This one has forced me to change pants tonight. Keep up the good work brentspeak.

[me b zola]

61. !

:applause:

[JCMach1]

73. Amen, time to put the spike in the heart of globalization and introduce

the Fair Trade concept.

[Cobalt Violet]

84. Run out the "free trade"scum!

They're killing us.

[entanglement]

91. Reactionary economic nationalism is not the answer to capitalist folly

Blaming foreign countries rather than the capitalists and power brokers world wide who profit at the expense of workers EVERYWHERE is counter-productive. The international working class must be united globally to take on the money men, end war, imperialism and exploitation of every kind. The idea is simple: Capital is organized globally, ergo workers must organize globally to face it. Nationalism only strengthens the hand of the profiteers by shifting the focus away from the class struggle and externalizing the cause of economic and social misery.

[Zhade]

93. Where does "Reactionary economic nationalism" appear as a proposed solution in this thread?

NT!

[pampango]

104. I believe that entanglement was responding to the OP which

did include a proposal to enact tariffs against China and India. The OP did not call that "Reactionary economic nationalism", but imposing tariff barriers to cut down on imports from the Third World and "put Americans back to work" could be considered by some to be a form of "American First" economic nationalism.

[upi402]

96. brentspeak the exhaulted one k/r

:woohoo:

[Pushed To The Left]

99. I don't know why any Democrat would support things like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc

Even moderate "swing voters" don't like those things, let alone us hardcore Democrats!

[robcon]

105. I support them.

They are great first steps. We need more of them, and we need developing countries to continue to lower tariffs and quotas to increase world trade.

[rman]

108. great first steps - for corporations to get richer still

The volume of world trade - just like "the economy" - does not say a thing about distribution of wealth. It is quite possible to have lots of trade and lots of poverty at the same time.

[Elwood P Dowd]

113. Then you support disasters

NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT are not free trade, and you know it RobConservative. It's not free trade when you ship both labor and capital out of the country just to take advantage of slave labor and bypass labor, environmental, and consumer protections.

[Zhade]

132. You're a self-described conservative. Of course you support corporate exploitation.

Or, like most conservatives, you're too ignorant/misled to not realize you're doing so.

[HughBeaumont]

110. Exactly. WHAT GOOD comes out of a displaced worker's life being ruined?

Particularly blue collar workers: my heart goes out to them. It's not like there'll be another factory/plant opening up near them anytime soon. They want to still do what they're doing, it'll usually require them to relocate and accept lesser pay.

Being FOR offshoring and destroying one middle class to lift another is NOT a progressive position. Progressives should not stand for a worker losing his livelihood through no fault of his/her own. This is unnecessary and demoralizing. Free Trade is all about corporate greed. Read my journal for more information about job offshoring and how much it kills the middle/poor classes of all nations involved.

[pampango]

112. Is there a middle ground between opposing outsourcing/offshoring

and restricting access of the Third World for their goods and services to our market?

I believe that the Third World needs access to the markets of the First World in order to develop as quickly as possible. We need to protect blue collar workers whose lives are ruined when a factory or plant is closed.

Is there a way to penalize or prevent US companies from closing a factory and moving it overseas, but not restrict the access of indigenous Third World companies to sell to our market?

[HughBeaumont]

115. Byron Dorgan . . .

http://dorgan.senate.gov/issues/economy/runawayplants/

Introduced a runaway plants bill, which closes the loophole of rewarding, via deferral, companies that fire blue collar workers and close plants in favor of moving offshore to Asian nations or wherever. It, of course, died in the then-Republican anti-worker-controlled Senate.

I don't get why the Third world would need access to our markets to develop. Thanks to the Robber-barron capitalist pigs, they're already developing, albeit under exploitative wages and the destruction of high-paying jobs on these shores. Witness the fact that we make very little over here anymore. Witness tech companies investing more and more in India for their research and Development departments and less and less with R&D here, despite their insistence that math/science/engineering degrees are the way to go (never mind there's not going to be that great a job market when you get out).

We need to get our own financial house in order and start eating away at the rich-poor gap before benevolence to other nations can occur. Free trade (another word for unbridled corporatism) would only expand that gap and take away purchasing power for the consumers in this country. Free trade only benefits the wealthy and keeps the worker classes of all nations involved stagnant. As Indian wages begin to rise, you don't think the corporations will start looking for more value added elsewhere?

[pampango]

117. The Third World needs access to First World markets, because it

enables them to develop faster. Most of the poor people in the world live in the Third World, not in the slums and rural areas of the First World.

It is much more likely for someone to build a factory in Bangladesh if the products can be sold to the First World, where the markets are much richer. If the factory had to restrict its sales to Bangladeshis, because we had put up tariff barriers to their goods, the factory would probably never be built in the first place. They would build it in the US, because that is where the market is. Good for us, not so good for the people of Bangladesh.

As you mentioned, India is already developing in part due to outsourcing from our corporations ("Robber-barron capitalist pigs"), As Indian wages begin to rise, I bet that companies do start to look elsewhere. But that makes corporations sound like marauders who go to one country, raise its wage levels, then move on to another and repeat the same process.

[jaybeat]

123. Yes, but, "Where's the values?"

The difference, as I understand it, between so-called "Free Trade" and so-called "Fair Trade" is that, the latter attempts to inject some values/ethics/morals into the otherwise amoral corporate calculation that will always produce something at the lowest cost and sell it for the highest price, regardless of the impact on the people involved (undercutting the competition not withstanding...).

I guess my question for the "pro-trade" crowd is, if the US decided to only import goods from foreign factories that pay a living wage, under decent working conditions, and that follow environmental and other standards, would an amoral capitalist still choose to build a factory there, or would they throw up their hands and build it instead in the good 'ol US of A?

Well, I may be oversimplified in my thinking here, but, why would either outcome be a bad one? A factory that follows health, safety, wage and environmental standards in Bangladesh would be, I think, good for the world. Good for Bangladesh and good for everywhere else. Exploiting Third-World workers and polluting like you want there to be no tomorrow isn't exactly good for the developed or developing world, is it? And if it is really more profitable to build the factory here, that's gotta be good, too, right? Living-wage jobs for Americans without a PhD, etc.

And, for the "pro-Fair Trade" group (I won't call them "anti-trade" or "pro-protectionism" because those are both straw-man characterizations and flat-out wrong), my question is, if we do use the power of the US's buying power to provide incentives for the development of "good" foreign production, and provide disincentives for "bad" foreign production, isn't that enough? Isn't that what we want--to try and get our economies (of our nation and our world) to improve the Public good, and not just the private? Ultimately, regardless of nationality, aren't we really "all in this together"?

Putting up my aluminum umbrella to protect against the deluge of attacks from both sides... now!

[Solon]

124. You seem to be confused...

There's a distinct difference between a Bangladeshi factory, owned and operated by Bangladeshis, that has so called "free" access to our markets, and foreign companies opening, owning and operating said factories, FOR EXPORT ONLY. In the first case, at least they will keep any capital and profits within Bangladesh, even if the products are exported, at least that is a somewhat fair trade off, and they usually have to follow any local laws regarding taxation. The same cannot be said for foreign owned factories that are present in countries like Bangladesh.

A common practice is to have "free trade zones" locations outside of towns, etc. where these factories are built. They are exempt, in many cases, from local environmental laws, worker protections, and taxation. They also, generally, take over the towns they are located in, completely. Many foreign companies end up owning most of the real estate(housing), in the area, the ONLY store for food and such, and in addition, they are exempt from taxation.

In cases like that, there is no economy to develop, in order for it to develop properly, capital must STAY in the local area, at least for a time, but in many cases, this simply isn't the case. The products produced at the factory are shipped out of the country, the workers pay the company for basic necessities, usually this is all of the paycheck they are given, by the same company, and, at the end of the day, they live in company housing. All the capital and profits of the company are then also shipped out of the local area to wherever the company is based.

Usually, when a foreign multinational takes over a town like this, most local businesses that are present either relocate or close their doors, permanently. Its simple economy of scale, no locally based business, with profit margins in the single percentile and capital that numbers in the thousands of dollars, if that, can compete with multinational corporations that have profit margins in double digits and capital that is greater than the GDP of the nation they opened the factory in.

To be honest, I would LOVE to be able to buy products from companies in these nations, if they carry a greater value and quality than domestic companies, I don't really care where the product is made, as long as its one of their OWN companies selling it. But that is not what is happening, instead I have to buy American, European, or Japanese branded products that are made in these nations. I don't think this is helping the workers of those nations that much.

[wuushew]

118. kick

:dem:

[Mrspeeker]

119. Either that or storm the capitol building

its going to take a revolution to get anything done even if the Dem's are in power, being as they like hand shakes and what not with the GOP!

[Hawkowl]

121. Right On!

100% correct.

[redqueen]

122. Hear hear! How about some RESPONSIBLE trade, instead? n/t

[Odin2005]

127. There is no such thing as "free trade" or "free markets," they are capitalist fictions

"Free Trade" is just Corporatist-speak for "let the trans-nationalist elite regulate trade for thier own benefit."

[pampango]

129. What type of trade and markets do you recommend?

[jaybeat]

130. Trade and markets that are not skewed towards the intrests of a few...

but towards the interests of many.

It obviously works just great one way (great for the few, that is); no reason it couldn't work the other.

[pampango]

131. How do you do that?

The profit motive seems to work (for better or worse) to encourage or discourage a lot of economic activity, sometimes too much of it or not enough or in the wrong places or in the wrong manner. How can we modify or replace this as a means of structure the economy to meet the needs of the many.

In theory the capitalist economy produces wealth by people pursuing their own interests; not altruism required. Obviously, the system is far from perfect, but it has created a high standard of living in the West.

[Odin2005]

134. "In Theory" is not good enough.

Capitalists always claim Capitalism is good "in theory," it allows the ignorant to let those capitalists of the hook for their crimes against Mankind. It doesn't matter what Capitalism is supposed to be "in theory," that is just a rationalization for the exploitation of the working class.

[Zhade]

136. "it has created a high standard of living in the West." - yes, at the expense of the East.

I can't tell if it's that you don't accept the fact that worker exploitation is rampant due to "free" trade, or you just don't care.

I'm hoping you just don't know as much about the subject as you think you do. The abuses are documented, and have been shown in this thread.

[pampango]

141. I believe that worker exploitation has occurred under every

economic system devised by man. I agree with you that the development of the West came in large part at the expense of the East. In part I would hope that some economic sacrifice now by the West might enable the East to gain some of the properity that they missed out on.

If you believe that there is an economic system that will prevent all worker exploitation and still lead to a decent level of prosperity for the masses, you are a true believer. I know you believe that I have not proven my case. So be it. I would support a system that had a better chance of improving living standards in the Third World, even if it requires some sacrifice on the part of the West and the First World.

[jaybeat]

142. Governments can encourage or discourage all kinds of behaviors

Right now, in the US, we have an executive branch that has been falling over itself in trying to use the power of the state to provide additional incentives for those with capital to further their own interests, often in direct conflict with the interests of the "general welfare." (Also in direct conflict, it should be noted, with their obligations under the constitution. Impeachment, anyone?? :kick: ) LOL!

So, if states can encourage capitalism by the captialists and for the capitalists, why can't they (true to their mandates to provide for the common welfare, etc.) discourage capitalism by and for the captialists, and encourage capitalism by and for the PEOPLE, "in theory" the true source of any and all sovereign power in a democracy?

Or is that democracy stuff really true in theory, but not in practice. Eh?

As far as "the system is far from perfect, but it has created a high standard of living in the West" is concerned, can anyone, honestly, think that the West's "high standard of living" is sustainable beyond our generation???

HwHAAAAAA!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

You're killing me! Make it stop! No, really!

What goes around, comes around. We reap as we sow. Do unto others. Yada, yada, yada.

Is this stuff really so hard?

[Odin2005]

135. Fair trade. Tariffs on countries that trat thier workers like slaves.

[pampango]

140. And that would be everywhere except Canada, Europe and

Australia, right? Are there some Third World countries that do not treat their workers like slaves?

[jaybeat]

143. But we could change that...

If the US said, "We won't buy your stuff if you treat your workers, and/or the environment like crap," then, overnight you would see a sea-change in how corporations and their surrogates treat workers and communities wherever they do business. Bangladesh, USA, where-ever.

Use the buying power of the US and 1st world affluence for good, not evil. Is that so hard??? :wtf: