Can anyone defend Dennis Kucinich's policy to withdraw from the WTO?

[denem]

Kucinich's Day 1 policy is to give notice that the United States is withdrawing from the World Trade Organization. That process would take six months. Can anyone here have a go at defending this proposal?

[fenriswolf]

1. I've heard his day 1 policy is to repeal NAFTA

I have not heard anything to the fact of getting out of the WTO, if so please link, and if so is that so bad? perhaps we should be more focused on creating things and making things in america rather then just consuming.

[denem]

2. OK - I may be mistaken. Looking now.

[denem]

4. Here:My first week in office, I will move to cancel NAFTA and our relationship with the WTO

I will move to ... go back to bilateral trade that will be conditioned on workers' rights, human rights, environmental quality principles.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2007_Dem_AFSCME_NV_Free_Trade.htm

Kucinich has form on what he means by his conditions, He opposed the US/Australia bilateral trade deal, because it might cost American jobs, not because of Australian workers' rights, human rights or environmental standards, which are superior in some respects to the US. America is enjoying a large trade surplus with Australia, and has been for years.

[Solon]

3. Well, the WTO is an organization designed to help externalize all costs onto the public...

so that corporations can maximize their profits without paying the penalties of doing so. I don't see anything that's good about this organization for the average person in America or the rest of the planet. In fact, they seem to suffer from it, not to mention they have no input in the process of approving WTO proposals. Its an undemocratic organization, I don't really want it to exist at all.

[denem]

5. Points taken.

But isn't internalizing the costs to corporations a failure of domestic policy, not trade.

[fenriswolf]

7. Internalizing what costs?

making companies move back their factories so that they don't have to pay international trade tarifss? to make companies actually produce those goods in the nation they sell them in? I mean I am not an economics teacher nor am I an expert in trade but I feel that allowing companies to produce goods in other nations using substandard equipment, using labor for pennies on the dollar as well as violating human rights and then sell those goods in a completly different economy for alot more money is not fair. If goods are to be produced in a foreign country especially for sale in the united states i see nothing wrong with making them trade on an economic level. Or barring that force the companies to produce the goods here giving americans a good job, making factories that are environmentally sound, and overall improving the economic infrastructure and back bone of america.

[Solon]

8. Corporations need to have the costs internalized, I don't see what's complicated about that....

and that can be PREVENTED through trade agreements. NAFTA is an example of this, let's say a local, or state law prevents a company from building a manufacturing plant in a sensitive area, for example, near a reservoir. That company can then, under NAFTA's chapter 11, turn around and sue the local or state government for, get this, potential loss of profits, and hence basically getting money for free. I don't understand how anyone can support policies like this.

[denem]

9. Cutting back trade does not internalize costs

The cost are passed on to consumers.

[Solon]

10. We aren't talking about cutting back trade, but cutting back unregulated trade...

there is a difference between the two.

[denem]

11. Cuuting back unregulated trade is cutting back trade.

Dennis is very clear on this. Taking action against trade with China will raise US prices across the board.

[Solon]

12. If prices at retail our your only concern, then I don't see how this would ever be a productive...

discussion. We have a choice, paying the price at retail, or paying the price through a degrading environment, public health problems, child labor, forced labor, and decreasing wages.

[denem]

15. It's not paying more at retail that's the problem-

1. Real wages fall because business will not compensate workers for the cost of living. 2. An inflationary surge will hurt the fixed income people relying on savings. 3. There's a knock on effect further devaluing the dollar.

If you want to know how hard trade cuts can bite look no further than sugar. Quotas keep our prices 2.5 times the world price. The result - HFCS in everything. It's virtually unknown outside North America.

[Solon]

17. No one is talking about trade CUTS, goddammit...

why the hell are you changing the subject? Free trade isn't about removing tariffs or quotas, its about regulating trade to benefit multi-national corporations at the expense of the average person. You keep on talking about cuts in trade, when that isn't even much of an issue, if you don't what to seriously discuss this subject, why the hell would you bring it up at all?

[denem]

19. Actually I have taken your points on board

Using the negotiating power of bilateral trade agreements to do something about human rights and the environment strongly appeals to me. I like to push an argument to be proved wrong. :)

[lakeguy]

13. organic produce is more expensive than

the pesticide laden crap. sometime paying the lowest damn price possible isn't sustainable.

[tkmorris]

22. Nonsense, This is NOT TRUE

Forgive the caps there, but this meme has been going around for so long that people just start accepting it as a truism, when in fact the opposite is true.

The "costs being passed on to consumers" idea presumes that corporations set prices based upon their costs, plus a certain profit margin. In fact, corporations charge whatever the market will bear, regardless of costs. The only consideration made to costs is in deciding whether a given product can be brought to market at a profit, given what consumers are willing to pay.

This is dramatically over-simplified of course, but the fact remains that many corporations could absorb such costs easily, without raising prices, and in fact are aware that if they did raise prices their market share would decrease resulting in a loss of profits versus simply staying where they are.

[denem]

23. It is true if the form of import restriction is proscription or quotas

I take the point on the costs plus margin pricing model - but cutting the supply means the market WILL bear higher prices. And higher costs ARE used as an excuse to raise prices - note the oil companies. It's not whether corporations can absorb costs, it's whether they will. Market share is relevant to competitive markets. There is low competition and collusion in many sectors of the economy.

[Hidden Stillness]

6. Killing WTO Does Not End Trade

I don't really understand your problem, even assuming that you are actually sincere at all. From what I understand, Kucinich's idea here, is that the NAFTA/CAFTA/GATT/"free" trade deregulated fast-track is the entire problem, not trade between Nations as a generality. The corporate court system, GATT/WTO, which overrides all actual law, National sovereignty, labor or environmental standards, etc. and kills them all, moving jobs to the worst, most corrupted places in the world, has become the looming, controlling force replacing all others. They just won another victory over anyone who wants to accomplish any other kind of goal, forcing all the world to have internet gambling whether it wants it or not--no one can even have any social goals, or even individual will as a people anymore, apart from the corporate will. The City of Boston lost a case a few years ago, by trying to pass a law requiring a living wage. The WTO sued them and won! The problem is not a series of individually negotiated trade agreements, the return of the old "favored Nation status" and lesser Nation status for trade, etc., it is the overwhelming, fascist power and control of these unelected corporate bankers and investment cartels, enforcing by the WTO and etc., a kind of worldwide corporate rule. This must be killed.

[Kucinich4America]

14. Better yet, can anyone defend getting involved in these disastrous "free" trade deals at all?

As far as I'm concerned, there is no defense.

The Unions were right. Perot was right. My dad was right. That shit has ruined America.

[denem]

21. The UK and Europe have had rising wages for 20 years

Here they have been flat. They're all members of the WTO.

[kelligesq]

16. Yes. WTO neutralizes our sovereignty, sets trade policy, fines if not followed -

benefit to the United States is non existent as can be seen over the last 8 years with our trade with China.

[cloudythescribbler]

18. As I gather, the basic idea's quite simple. Announcing withdrawal is the ONLY effective way...

To force reform of this hideous overall system for regulating world trade. Remember that international trade is no more synonymous with the WTO than oil (or energy) is with Exxon. We should not equate the institutional form with what that form regulates and controls.

In the area of international trade, the fundamental problem is that ecological, human rights, and labor issues are given short shrift. They are not, as they should be, enforced with no less alacrity than non-protectionism. Indeed, they are morally and 'humanly' more urgent. The notion of sacrificing bona fide ecological protections for the sake of free trade is noxious and perverse, from the standpoint of the interests of humanity as a whole. We need a new system that does not promote a race to the bottom as far as the protection of both nature and of the working class (and dissenters) are concerned; that is the basic idea behind the FORCED RE-NEGOTIATION of the trade system that Kucinich advocates.


DON'T SERVE HATE! ABROGATE!

[denem]

20. There is a problem wtih that argument

The flip side is that any of the WTO's other 150 members are freed to place any quota, prohibition or discriminatory tariffs they like on US exports, and junk US Intellectual Property.

[MadHound]

25. Like that doesn't happen already

C'mon, look at China, the number one thief of US intellectual property. As far as imposing tariffs on US exports, what US exports, other than food?

I seriously doubt that we would have tariffs put on us simply because of the fear that as the number one consumer nation, we would put tariffs on an importing country.

[denem]

27. We don't sell much to China

It's the rest of the world that will cut us off. Europe would be delighted.

[malaise]

24. The WTO is one of the most destructive institutions on the planet

It is all the proof I need to demonstrate that corporations have overrun national interests across the globe.

Add.

[denem]

26. All 151 member countries are dupes?

and the 17 currently applying. Gee every one of them thinks it's in their economic interest. There must not be a single democracy left on earth. The European Union free trade zone is of course a disaster for every member county. But our wisdom means we HAVE to know better. They are all parasites feeding of the American consumer! It couldn't be OUR political and economic system thats at fault, not the other 150 WTO members? Don't bother to invest in education, engineering, R&D, infrastructure and carry the highest health care costs in the world and see what happens. We're not competitive Wah!

... and don't tell me it's their low wages when ours haven't moved in 30 years.