General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFrance: Yet another nation turns against globalism: 80% see it as a job-killer
The opposition is coming from the Left and the Right.
Apparently, like Americans, the French are tired of seeing the world building walls to keep their workers out of the global job market.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/11/us-france-globalisation-idUSBRE83A18K20120411
Vast majority of French against globalization: poll
(Reuters) - A majority of the French favor protectionist measures and see globalization as bad for jobs, a poll showed, suggesting support for a trend in France's presidential campaign that has pushed President Nicolas Sarkozy to advocate a "Buy European" policy.
The survey by pollster IFOP and due to be published on Thursday in La Croix daily showed that eight out of 10 French people saw globalization as hurting employment, while nearly seven in 10 said it helped to increase public deficits.
Of the 1,052 people questioned by IFOP between April 6 and 10, only 22 percent saw globalization as a "good thing" for their country, while seven in 10 said France should increase taxes on products imported from emerging countries.
Sixty-two percent said France should restore customs duties at its borders unilaterally if the European Union failed to raise levies on foreign goods.
Hostility for globalization has taken centre-stage in France's election campaign, with far-right chief Marine Le Pen and hard leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon gathering some 30 percent of vote intentions in the first of two election rounds on April 22.

JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Populist_Prole
(5,364 posts)jsr
(7,712 posts)as much as possible. It's our best way out.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I wonder what percentage of Americans feel the same way?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)in agreeing to more trade pacts that don't require equality in trade.
We should not run trade deficits. We hear a lot about our budget deficits. Personally, I think that there is a link between trade deficits and budget deficits but no one talks about it.
In my opinion, the link has to do with available income to generate tax revenue. Global markets have resulted in higher unemployment, probably much higher than our statistics reflect, in the US. The unemployed cannot and do not pay taxes. They receive assistance in some cases, but cannot pay much if anything in taxes. They are unemployed because we are importing more in dollar value than we are exporting. In addition to our huge military expenses overseas, we pay far more out overseas than we receive from other countries.
Of course, we have a hole, a huge one, in our tax revenue since the money we spend overseas does not show up as taxable income on what we might visualize or understand as a sort of national balance sheet. I am just speaking in a sort of metaphor. We don't really have a national balance sheet that reflects the relationship between our foreign trade deficit and our budget deficit and tax revenue deficit. But If we did, I think we would change our trade policies.
We are using overly generous trade policies to buy friends abroad. It's a stupid idea.
Trying to buy friends is something politicians like to do. But it didn't work in the third grade and it doesn't work for adults either. We should try to be fiscally responsible and that means being responsible about what we spend in the global marketplace.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Keep developing those ideas, I think you're on to something.
Another way to look at it is that, when it comes to trade, government is no longer functioning as an agent of its citizens, it is an intermediary, creating trade policies as requested, often word for word, by corporate donors for the purpose of hiring people and extracting resources from the cheapest and least regulated places on the planet, using our taxpayer-paid military to provide a "secure business environment" around the globe. So their concern about deficits their trade policies (and military expenses) are creating is secondary to the campaign cash they raise by passing the corporation's legislation.
edited to add:
I forgot to say that I absolutely agree that Democrats are making a huge mistake on trade policy. At least from the point of view of a U.S. citizen who doesn't profit from multinational corporation profits. there would be a terrible political price for it, but the Republicans are even worse on trade. Both parties have left the average U.S. citizen's interests completely unrepresented on this issue.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Top 3 causes: Bush recession; Bush tax cuts; Bush wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Why is it important? Because the money has to come from somewhere and for years, we've been borrowing it.
Does it relate to our national debt? Yes, by a slightly circuitous route. When we spend more abroad than we earn, the rest of the world has more of our dollars than we have of their currencies, right? What do they DO with our dollars? They can buy ASSETS in America like the Japanese used to: Rockefeller Center, the Pebble Beach golf course, Columbia Pictures. They can buy U.S. stocks. And/or they can LEND us back the dollars, for which they get - to use 'Guys and Dolls' terminology - our "marker": our Treasury bills, notes, and bonds - our IOUs.
And why does the Treasury need to issue IOUs? To cover our annual deficit, of course, because the government TOO spends more than it earns. Which means that it doesn't tax us as much as it should. Which means that we have the extra money to buy more stuff from abroad. It also means that our cumulative national debt grows.
pampango
(24,692 posts)"circuitous", as you can see on the graph.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)That's like saying an earthquake causes your house to explode via a circuitous route: by rupturing gas lines.
You might also look up the concept of "proximate cause".
pampango
(24,692 posts)an earthquake and a tsunami in the deficit.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It'll just mean we bleed out more slowly.
A trade deficit is the one deficit that you cannot counter in any way except by cutting the trade deficit.
We didn't run this kind of trade deficit, if we ran any at all, during the Smoot-Hawley years.
If you understood basic economics you would understand this: Tariffs cannot harm a nation that runs a trade deficit of this size, especially with the combined active and idled industrial capacity that we have. We can handle a rise in the price of imports better than we can handle the job losses that are an automatic consequence of a transition to high trade deficits.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Republicans (87%), Democrats (91%) and independents (87%) all favor Buy America policies, according to the survey released Monday by the Alliance of American Manufacturing.Even when presented with arguments from critics of Buy American about higher costs and increased taxes, voters supported Buy American policies by a wide margin.
The survey found that 53% of voters rate manufacturing as the industry "most important to the overall strength of the American economy."
pampango
(24,692 posts)you extrapolate the findings from 2009 to 2010. You might want to reconsider the label you put on a poll that supports the view that globalization is becoming increasingly unpopular.
The reputation of the Pew organization for accurate polling probably ranks a little higher than that of the Alliance for American Manufacturing. (This AAM poll may have been well done and 'accurate' but it would be nice to see the same results from a poll conducted by an organization that doesn't have a vested interest in the outcome of the poll. When a industry group releases a poll that shows that the government should do more for that industry, 'accurate polling' is not the first thing that comes to mind.)
The Pew poll that you so regularly disparage shows that opposition in the US to globalization was increasing rapidly from 2009 to 2010 and is probably a strong majority by now. Is that 'inaccurate"? Or is the overall conclusion of the poll 'accurate', but some of the internal poll findings are 'inaccurate' since you do not agree with them.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Your sole reason for posting that lame poll is to push the lie that Democrats support offshoring American jobs more than Republicans do. The more accurate poll which I posted, shows that only 9% of Democrats support offshoring. 13% of Republicans. You've long been trying to portray protectionism as a Republican thing and this time around I beat you to the punch by showing that it has become more of a DEMOCRAT thing.
And what's worse for your argument is that it's spreading to other nations.
You can't stop the revolution.
The world has gotten away far too long with putting up walls to block out American workers, and apparently workers of other first world nations, too. That shit is coming to an end.
Feel free to keep fighting for a doomed cause. How many people still worship the Sun God Ra? About as many as who support your side of this issue...
pampango
(24,692 posts)Your poll shows only 91% of Democrats support a "strong Buy America programs for public works". That is support for a program that applies to public works funded by the government. The article does not claim that this support applies to everything that everyone buys. That it must mean that is the Zalatix' interpretation.
"And what's worse for your argument is that it's spreading to other nations."
At least in France (the subject of your OP) that opposition to globalization has been led by the far-right, National Front party. Given that 80% of French now agree you can safely say that that view of globalization has spread to other parts of French politics. In the French election this year the National Front and Sarkozy's conservative party were the ones campaigning for more protectionism. The Socialist party did not and it won the election.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Your logic is totally falling apart here. And you really think that "strong Buy America programs for public works" is the limit of what Democrats support? Really? That's pretty myopic, but that's part for the ol' Pampango golf course,. Go ahead and ask 10 working class Democrats if they want to see their job go overseas and I promise you you'll bat 0 for 10. Zero. But you won't do that, because you know your feelings will get hurt and you'll have to run back to hug your Pew poll like a security blanket.
What's worse, you completely misinterpret what's going on in France. Protectionism didn't start with the Far Right - it started across the board.
Stop living in the past, stop dwelling on what Republicans used to stand for. The whole nation is against you on this. Nobody gives a shit about who stood for Protectionism in the past. Republicans used to oppose slavery. Democrats used to support slavery and they (especially in the South) also used to support Jim Crow laws. On the other hand, the far right Von Mises Institute and the Chamber of Commerce stand with you regarding trade.
You cannot stand on logic so now you're reduced to saying "but Republicans started that movement". That's just weak, and you've played that tactic into the ground.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Didn't say that, did I? I said: "Your poll shows only 91% of Democrats support a "strong Buy America programs for public works". That is support for a program that applies to public works funded by the government. The article does not claim that this support applies to everything that everyone buys."
The article you linked to made no claim that its findings of support for "strong Buy America programs for public works" proved that this was the "limit of what Democrats support" nor did it claim to prove that Democrats support a whole range of trade restrictions on everything that everyone buys. You may infer from that finding that Democrats must logically then support everything that you believe in. To prove that one would have to poll specifically about support for 'free trade' (NAFTA, WTO, etc.) or support for higher tariffs and other trade restrictions.
"... you completely misinterpret what's going on in France. Protectionism didn't start with the Far Right - it started across the board."
Link? Proof? Or is your statement of 'fact' supposed to be sufficient? Here are 12 far-right parties in Europe. If you look at their policies on trade and immigration you will see a close correlation to the views of the teabaggers and republican base on trade shown in the Pew poll and in any poll of teabagger attitudes on immigration. (They all want to build a wall literally or figuratively around their countries to keep 'them' and 'their' stuff out.) While you may trash that poll, it shows the same attitudes on the far-right in the US and in Europe.
OTOH, continued support for the EU (with its open borders and 'free trade' with each other) comes from the liberal end of the political spectrum (like the Socialists in France). Not surprising since "we are all in this together" and "build bridges, not walls" are not sentiments you hear expressed at tea party rallies or those of the National Front in France or any other European 'tea party-like' far-right group.
"Stop living in the past.
Stop looking at history and what has worked and not worked in the past? Just live in the moment and support policies that I 'really, really think will work' even though they have not in the past. During the 12 years of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover (the first 10 years they had republican controlled congresses to do what they wanted) their high-tariff, restrictive immigration policies led to a spiraling of income inequality to a level which (at the time) were record levels.
I understand you desire to not 'live in the past' since the fact of what happened to the country during previous efforts to build 'walls' around the country to protect us from trade and immigration, do not provide much solace for the policies you promote.
'[]i... "but Republicans started that movement" ...
As you rightly point out the republican party of Lincoln was not the republican party of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Lincoln was anything but conservative. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover were anything but liberal. It would be more useful for me to post that conservatives started the movement. That is more accurate since long ago republicans used to be liberal.
The Hidden Progressive History of Income Tax
The income tax was the most popular economic justice movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This truly grassroots movement forced politicians to act in order to stay in office, leading to the 16th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913. Thats right, the income tax was so popular that the nation passed a constitutional amendment so that the right-wing Supreme Court couldnt overturn it.
Everyday Americans hated the tax system of the Gilded Age. The federal government gathered taxes in two ways. First, it placed high tariff rates on imports. These import taxes protected American industries from competition. This allowed companies to charge high prices on products that the working class needed to survive while also protecting the monopolies that controlled their everyday lives. Second, the government had high excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol, two products used heavily by the American working class.
These forms of indirect taxes meant that almost the entirety of federal tax revenue came from the poor while the rich paid virtually nothing. This spawned enormous outrage.
The income tax became such an overwhelming political movement during the 1890s that Congress, despite so many members' close relationship with the plutocracy, passed an income tax law that would have forced the rich to begin paying income taxes for the first time since 1870. ... Corporations immediately organized against this. In a strategy we can recognize today, the Chamber of Commerce distorted the bills purpose, telling the public that the income tax would drive them into poverty, even though the bill did not affect working-class people.
But the Supreme Court in 1895 declared the federal income tax unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company. Yet the income tax movement continued, now with the goal of a constitutional amendment to overcome a hostile Court. Over the next 15 years, a variety of reform movements, including farmers, organized labor, and, increasingly, middle-class reformers known as Progressives, pushed for the income tax to alleviate Americas stubborn inequality and to provide the government more money in order to function as modern 20th-century state. Despite continued corporate opposition, Congress presented a constitutional amendment to the states in 1909, which finally achieved ratification in 1913 as the 16th Amendment. Over the next century, income taxes played an enormous role in leveling the national playing field and creating the middle class.
Progressives need to reclaim income tax rates as an organizing issue. We need to press for an aggressive tax increase on the wealthy while lowering income taxes for those who cant afford to pay them. We should also call for vigorous prosecution of tax cheats, the closing of tax loopholes, and a series of government programs directly paid for by the income taxes from the wealthy. This is a tall order in the face of the current anti-tax mentality. But until we reclaim the mantle of progressive taxation, we wont have access to a primary tool to create a more just and equitable society.
http://www.thenation.com/slideshow/162731/slide-show-europes-far-right-resurgence#
I know what you are going to say. "More living in the past! So what if progressives worked to reduce tariffs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, because they viewed them as regressive taxes on the working class! So what if corporations (and the Chamber) lobbied relentlessly to protect high tariffs and the working class hated them! So what if FDR opposed high tariffs just as progressives had a few decades earlier!
Anyway, I think you can see why republicans went back to a policy of high tariffs as soon as they got back into office in 1921. Progressives hated them!
None of that matters. It's different now, right? History is irrelevant, right? What conservatives supported in the past; what produced spiraling inequality in the past; what was opposed by progressives in the past (and is still opposed by them in Europe today) - it will work now! Things are different now!
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You're just angry and desperately grasping for consolation against the fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have no tolerance anymore for your outdated views on trade.
Opposition to offshoring began among France's working class, moreso than it began among the Right. The same is true here.
Once again I will say: Go ahead and ask 10 working class Democrats if they want to see their job go overseas and I promise you you'll bat 0 for 10. Zero. But you won't do that, because you know your feelings will get hurt and you'll have to run back to hug your Pew poll like a security blanket.
Your argument about the Gilded Age ignores two glaring facts: the huge excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and THE MONOPOLIES. Monopolies were what drove prices through the roof, far moreso than tariffs. And we have some hefty taxes now on alcohol and tobacco, for the sake of people's health. I'm just waiting for you to show us a cite that the Conservatives started that shit. You should be opposing tobacco and alcohol taxes just about any moment now. Moreover, we didn't import nearly as much back then as we do now. In fact, during the Smoot-Hawley years, we were running trade surpluses. Times ARE different now, because we're running monster deficits. WAY different.
In short, that whole cite you posted about how tariffs affected our economy? It doesn't say what you think it says.
Your problem is that your ideology has no friends in any segment of the working class populace. You want to keep blaming it on the Far Right, but that's your smokescreen for avoiding the fact that opposition to offshoring came from somewhere else: the working class.
Your only friends here are the Cato Institute, and the US Chamber of Commerce. Since you refused to answer Romulox's post, I'll repost it here for you.
http://www.cato.org/globalization
Ultimately, what you really don't want to address is the fact that the world is building walls aimed specifically at keeping American workers out of the American AND global labor market. I'll be sure to keep bringing this up, because it is the most basic and damaging flaw in your argument.
pampango
(24,692 posts)producers. It does not mean that tariffs would be place on anything. If we tell government to buy only domestic cars that does not mean that tariffs get placed on imported cars.
'Opposition to offshoring began among France's working class, moreso than it began among the Right.
Link? Tell the Socialist party that support for protectionism began in the working class not on the far-right. Support for protectionism is part of every far-right party platform in Europe. That is not true of left wing parties.
Your argument about the Gilded Age ignores two glaring facts: the huge excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, and THE MONOPOLIES. Monopolies were what drove prices through the roof, far moreso than tariffs.
An interesting theory, but hardly a proven one. Progressives on the era knew that the existence of monopolies was part of the problem. They also knew that high tariffs protected domestic monopolies from foreign competition. That is also why corporations and the Chamber worked so vigorously to protect their high tariffs. Those made it much easier to maintain their monopolies. Monopolies don't like competition (domestic or foreign) and tariffs were one big way that they could limit the foreign competition. Progressive knew that.
"You want to keep blaming it on the Far Right, but that's your smokescreen for avoiding the fact that opposition to offshoring came from somewhere else: the working class."
I am not blaming it on the far-right. It is a fact that the far-right is leading the way in protectionism. You see it in the tea party here in the US, the National Front in France, the Freedom Party in the Netherlands, Golden Dawn in Greece and everywhere else.
"the world is building walls aimed specifically at keeping American workers out of the American AND global labor market. I'll be sure to keep bringing this up, because it is the most basic and damaging flaw in your argument."
And of course I keep bringing up that the per capita exports of American workers is exceed only by the exports per capita in Germany. If American labor is so discriminated against how is it each American worker exports more than workers in practically every other country (who I assume are not discriminated against in you opinion)?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)This poll asked about support for the Government only purchasing stuff made in the USA. The fact that 91% of Democrats support that, quite clearly suggests that their support for Protectionism goes far beyond this. Right up to and including tariffs. Protectionism has always started among the working classes. Whether the Left or Right wing picks up on it is irrelevant.
Destroy all Right wing thought and Protectionism will always arise where workers realize they're being blocked out of the global labor market. Non-oil trade deficits like the ones America is running, will always breed Protectionism. It's called self-preservation.
And once again I will say: Go ahead and ask 10 working class Democrats if they want to see their job go overseas and I promise you you'll bat 0 for 10. Zero. But you won't do that, because you know your feelings will get hurt and you'll have to run back to hug your Pew poll like a security blanket.
They don't. They import more than they export; that means net NEGATIVE exports. With the trade deficits that we have, we can sacrifice all exports and it will benefit us because the imports will also go away. The key is that we have a massive active and idled industrial capacity here in America and we CAN import substitute.
Hardly proven? You have no idea of the price-uplifting power of a monopoly, do you? When patents run out on products, their prices plummet. That's not due to imports; that's due to the death of a temporary monopoly. I can point out a million examples. Tariffs don't really mean a whole lot when there are 20 companies in the country producing the same thing - they'll compete on price, unless there is collusion, which is illegal.
Basic economics. Well proven. You're really grasping for straws now.
Self-contradiction much?
BTW
The REAL money men at CATO agree with you 100%. Anything on this page you DISAGREE with?
http://www.cato.org/globalization
They thank you for your cooperation. And perhaps at some point you can explain why the Plutocrats support globalization now? I know this makes you uncomfortable so I will keep posting it. Why bother avoiding it when you know it's just going to dog you every time you post a defense of globalization?
pampango
(24,692 posts)"quite clearly suggests" means what you want it to mean. To go from "quite clearly suggesting" to showing what people believe would require a poll actually asking about attitudes about trade, trade agreements and tariffs. I know of only one of those and you don't 'accept' that one.

"Protectionism has always started among the working classes" - except when they started with corporations and the rich, like when high tariffs were viewed as regressive taxes on the working class and progressives and the working class worked to get tariffs eliminated.
"Whether the Left or Right wing picks up on it is irrelevant."
Nice to know that the fact that a policy is picked up by the Right is irrelevant to whether it is a good policy.
American worker exports more than workers in practically every other country. "They don't.
Yes they do.
"They import more than they export..."
You are right. An analogy - if I have a great job making a paying a good wage, it is hard to make the case that I was discriminated against in the job market. That is true even if I spend twice as much as I earn and end up deep in debt. The fact that I am in debt does not prove that I was discriminated against. It just proves that I am buying more than I make.
If American workers export more per capita than almost any other country's workers, they are not discriminated against in the world market. The fact that we buy more than we sell is not proof of discrimination.
"And perhaps at some point you can explain why the Plutocrats support globalization now?"
Look, conservatives fought against low tariffs for 100 years in the US and continue to fight against them in Europe and elsewhere. Progressive have always fought for low tariffs and still do in Europe and elsewhere.
The fact that the republican party finally caved in the 1980's and joined the liberal low-tariff bandwagon of FDR and those who pushed through the income tax amendment is no reason for us to reflexively flip-flop and say "Wait a minute. If you are finally in favor of low-tariffs, we have to switch sides and oppose them." I look at the caving of the conservative plutocrats on tariffs as a progressive victory. The plutocrats fought for high tariffs for a hundred years. They were finally defeated by FDR and progressives. It should be embraced as such.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)News flash: NAFTA is not popular among Democrats or Republicans. You still have a big problem with the bipartisan opposition to your dream world.
Support for Government "Buy American" policies is merely a side-effect of a general bipartisan opposition to offshoring.
President Obama is attacking Mitt Romney for offshoring American jobs. Perhaps you forgot that? If Democrats didn't overwhelmingly oppose offshoring then Obama wouldn't be hitting that angle. If your Pew Poll was in any way accurate, then Obama would be doing himself damage by running these ads.
Tariffs help workers. Tariffs save American jobs. Obama just used them against China in the solar panel industry. Yet you oppose tariffs. Hmmmmmmmm.
Once again, the issue in the 1800s wasn't high tariffs. It was monopolies and excise taxes on popular consumer items like alcohol and tobacco. I also noticed you don't have a problem with the "sin" taxes of today, which are probably just as high or worse.
And once again I will say to you: Go ahead and ask 10 working class Democrats if they want to see their job go overseas and I promise you you'll bat 0 for 10. Zero. But you won't do that, because you know your feelings will get hurt and you'll have to run back to hug your Pew poll like a security blanket.
BTW
The REAL money men at CATO agree with you 100%. Anything on this page you DISAGREE with?
http://www.cato.org/globalization
They thank you for your cooperation. And perhaps at some point you can explain why the Plutocrats support globalization now? I know this makes you uncomfortable so I will keep posting it. Why bother avoiding it when you know it's just going to dog you every time you post a defense of globalization?
From here on I am just going to repeat this, because you keep avoiding these specific points.
Your arguments aren't worth anything more than that.
pampango
(24,692 posts)by many Democrats (see the Pew poll) and by all liberal parties in Europe.
Obama just used them against China in the solar panel industry. Yet you oppose tariffs. Hmmmmmmmm.
Obama imposed retaliatory tariffs on China because it was violating trade agreements. I support holding countries liable if they fail to live up to their agreements whether is is China, the US or any other country.
Tariffs help workers. Tariffs save American jobs.
Sure they do. That's why FDR worked to eliminate high tariffs. He did not want to help workers and save American jobs. And that's why the tea party and other far-right support tariffs, because they are concerned for the welfare of workers. You give them too much credit, I do believe.
the issue in the 1800s wasn't high tariffs. It was monopolies and excise taxes on popular consumer items like alcohol and tobacco. I also noticed you don't have a problem with the "sin" taxes of today, which are probably just as high or worse.
Don't tell the progressives of the late 1800's and early 1900's that high tariffs were not a problem. They viewed them specifically as a regressive tax on the working class used by the plutocrats to protect their domestic monopolies and shift taxes from them to the working class. You may view monopolies as a bigger threat to the working class of that era, but that is your opinion and not one shared by progressives of that era.
Sin taxes are certainly regressive in terms of their affect on the poor and working class, just as was the case 100 years ago. One can argue that these taxes have beneficial health-related consequences, but they are certainly regressive in their financial impacts, now as then.
And once again I will say to you: Go ahead and ask 10 working class Democrats if they want to see their job go overseas and I promise you you'll bat 0 for 10. Zero. But you won't do that, because you know your feelings will get hurt and you'll have to run back to hug your Pew poll like a security blanket.
I doubt any of them want to see their jobs outsourced anywhere whether that is (Argentina) overseas or to another state (say, Alabama) in the US. Ohio has lost more good union jobs to right-to-work states than it has to foreign countries. That does not mean that they don't want us to trade with Alabama (or any other right-to-work state) or Argentina. It means that we in Ohio want to compete fairly with Alabama or with Argentina. US trade with 'free trade' countries is about as fair (balanced) as you can get probably better than Ohio's trade with Alabama. I doubt Alabama buys nearly as much from Ohio as we buy from them.
If you ask 10 working class Democrats if they want to see their job go to a right-to-work state, I doubt you will get even 1 Ohio worker who will agree with that.
The Pew poll is a fact. You can and do choose to ignore it because you don't agree with some its findings. I accept it as a fact, even though some of its conclusions - like the increasing opposition to trade - are not what I like to see. You reject any evidence that goes against your beliefs, perhaps thinking that if you repeat your rejection often enough and loudly enough, facts will go away or cease being a facts. What party does that remind you of?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Obama is doing more than just hitting China with retaliatory tariffs. He's also attacking Romney for OUTSOURCING JOBS OUT OF THE COUNTRY. I provided you with proof on video.
You're still avoiding the question. Do you think that ANY person in America wants to see their job move out of the country? Yes or no.
There are three big, glaring errors in your argument that I know you will try to gloss over. Your whole argument dies if you don't gloss it over.
1) If a job moves from Ohio to Alabama you don't need a PASSPORT to move to Alabama to pursue that job.
2) You don't need to go through an IMMIGRATION PROCESS to move from Ohio to Alabama to pursue that job.
3) The Federal Government could, feasibly, do away with right to work laws in Alabama. If the job moves to China, you can't do that.
I expect that you'll either abandon this approach or you'll keep repeating this fallacy in hopes that I won't cut and paste this response back at you.
But my question is whether you think any worker in America will want to see their job move overseas. You know the answer to that is no.
You also know that most people would rather see a job move to Alabama than Mexico. Because they can at least move to Alabama.
FDR did not live in an era of crushing trade deficits. Using FDR's policies in today's climate is like sending birds to the North Pole for the winter.
That's the problem with your argument - you have ZERO ability to adapt to the changing times.
You don't even understand the overwhelming impact of MONOPOLIES as a multiplier of consumer prices. This is why Apple sued Samsung; even in a world of FREE TRADE Apple locks in its ultra high prices for its goods by using patent law to destroy the competition who might be using similar technology. Free trade didn't stop that, now did it?
Again, tariffs protect the working class. The damage was done by monopolies and excise taxes which would exist (and do still exist in the form of a "sin tax"

The Pew Poll is INACCURATE. You can and do choose to continue to cling to it because it is all you've got left. Reality has left your beliefs behind. Nobody supports your views anymore. Remember what I told you about the Sun God Ra? That's your belief system... and the sands of time are burying it.
Keep clinging to that Pew Poll, even as everything around you renders it obsolete and laughably unreliable.
pampango
(24,692 posts)high tariffs. And only far-right political parties that promote tariffs today. Kind of shoots a whole in that argument, unless republicans and far-right wingers are now the parties of the working class.
Do you think that ANY person in America wants to see their job move out of the country? Yes or no.
No person wants his or her job to move out of their city, state or country. Is that clear enough for you? Neither do they want their job eliminated because people in another country stop buying what they make.
1) If a job moves from Ohio to Alabama you don't need a PASSPORT to move to Alabama to pursue that job.
No but I do need to uproot myself and my family to follow a job to a lower-wage, right-to-work state. I guess that makes it OK with you. "Hey, you can always move to Alabama if your union is broken by right-to-work competition." Thanks. But, no thanks.
2) You don't need to go through an IMMIGRATION PROCESS to move from Ohio to Alabama to pursue that job.
You're starting to sound like one of those "open borders" liberals. Be careful. So if I don't need to go through an immigration process for a job in Canada or Germany (the kind of deal that Europeans have with each other) then 'free trade' would be OK? Starting to sound like a European liberal now. Go slow.
3) The Federal Government could, feasibly, do away with right to work laws in Alabama. If the job moves to China, you can't do that.
Don't be surprised if I don't hold my breath waiting for the federal government to do anything about right-to-work laws. Haven't seen a whole lot of movement (or even talk in congress) on that front. Alabama will continue to take more jobs from Ohio than China does.
That's the problem with your argument - you have ZERO ability to adapt to the changing times.
Europeans have plenty of 'free trade' and 'open borders' and they have societies that are much more progressive than ours. European have adapted quite well to changing times. We should do the same.
Conversely, you have ZERO ability to admit that your tariff policy has been tried before and failed. High tariffs are not a new idea. Republicans are the only party to try which should tell you that the interests of the working class are not served by it. If you want to ignore history because "times are different now" and "nothing that has happened before can teach me anything", then go right ahead. Maybe tariffs will serve the interests of the working class for the first time.
I believe that Pew is a reputable polling organization. I'm not sure if you don't believe any of their polls or just those you don't agree with. Either way I will use Pew polls and you can use the world-renowned polls from the Alliance of American Manufacturing.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"Republicans support tariffs, ergo tariffs are bad" is a logical fallacy. It does not address the fact that almost EVERYONE of both political persuasions support them now. Propose tariffs now and see how fast you get people on board. Don't be the fool that stands in opposition to them - that's a good way to get BURIED in tomatoes. From Democrats or Republicans alike.
No one wants their job moved out of the country.
Moving jobs out of the country is WORSE than moving them to another state. With or without right to work laws.
Right to work laws suck, but lower wage jobs suck less than NO JOBS AT ALL.
I'm going to repeat this FOREVER. Because it is absolutely the truth. FOREVER.
Do you get it yet?
But you do need to go through an immigration and passport process to work in Canada, so your fantasy does not apply.
Yeah, that's why their unemployment is so high and the Euro is in crisis, because they've adapted so damned well.
Because they haven't. 25% tariffs against American products worked quite well in China, look where they are now.
You keep denying that America is running trade deficits that we weren't running during previous periods of tariffs. Apparently you know this damages your whole argument.
You know that we can't ship jobs out of the country if we have tariffs that are high enough.
And you can feel free to use your outdated, laughable Pew polls. I will keep responding with the much more accurate and credible Alliance of American Manufacturing poll. Of course as time wears on, other polls will show up that further undermine you. This is a certainty, considering that America no longer wants anything to do with your ideology.
I will fight offshoring until we drive that bullshit ideology from our shores and drive it away permanently. I will be utterly tireless about it, until we bring those American jobs back home. Every. Last. JOB.
pampango
(24,692 posts)they don't care about the interest of workers. Or do they in your opinion?
" .... you do need to go through an immigration and passport process to work in Canada, so your fantasy does not apply."
But you would have us apply higher tariffs on goods from Canada rather than work to eliminate the need for an immigration and passport process as they have done in Europe? I know which one a European liberal would suggest and it's not the one that a right-winger would support.
that's why their (Europeans') unemployment is so high and the Euro is in crisis, because they've adapted so damned well.
Germany, Norway, Sweden and many more have low unemployment, strong unions, trade surpluses and equitable distributions of income. And they trade with other countries to a much higher degree than we do. Yes, they have adapted very well. FDR would be quite proud of them and ashamed of what the US has become.
"25% tariffs against American products worked quite well in China, look where they are now.
(To be honest I was kind of hoping you would go back to this.) You do realize that the distribution of income in China is EVEN WORSE than it is in the US and that is saying something. Their growth is the essence of 'trickle down' economics. The rich there are getting fantastically rich and the middle class is growing from what trickles down to them.
China is a modern example (like the 1920's US with its high tariffs) of high tariffs screwing the working class and skewing the income distribution towards the rich. If the 'success' of 'trickle down economics' in China is a reason to support high tariffs in the US, then I guess we can be more like China.
"the much more accurate and credible Alliance of American Manufacturing poll"
Anyone who thinks that the Alliance for American Manufacturing has a better reputation for credible polling than the Pew organization is welcome to their opinion.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"republicans support tariffs because they don't care about the interest of workers."
There's your safety blanket again. Anything to distract from the fact that opposition to offshoring is both overwhelming and bipartisan.
And I was hoping you'd try to make that argument. China's middle class has EXPLODED in size while ours has imploded. You might very well be the only person alive that claims China's working class is worse off now than it was before.

Okay so now you believe that Canada will actually WANT to open their borders to America. We have a population of unemployed and underemployed Americans that, at 12.5 million as of 2012, is almost HALF of the whole population of Canada. NOT counting those who've simply dropped out of the labor force for lack of a job. If Canada opens their borders they can immediately look forward to competing with 12.5 million more people for the jobs they have. The sheer math shows that this would be utterly disastrous for Canada.
Fortunately, though, your worldwide open borders fantasy will never occur. Feel free to keep dreaming, though!

No one wants their job moved out of the country. Not Republicans, and not Democrats. Nobody supports offshoring anymore because moving jobs out of the country is WORSE than moving them to another state. With or without right to work laws. Right to work laws suck, but lower wage jobs suck less than NO JOBS AT ALL. Everyone understands this, except you. You keep denying that America is running trade deficits that we weren't running during previous periods of tariffs. Apparently you know this damages your whole argument.
You know that we can't ship jobs out of the country if we have tariffs that are high enough.
Everyone else knows it, too.
pampango
(24,692 posts)of the republican party.
"China's middle class has EXPLODED in size while ours has imploded. You might very well be the only person alive that claims China's working class is worse off now than it was before."
You might want to work on those reading skills. I did not claim that China's working class is worse off now.
I note you did not deny that China's middle class has grown through trickle down economics which has skewed the benefits towards the rich. The same thing happened in the 1920's in the US. If you support that kind of economic growth you belong on romney's economic advisory team. We just have to increase the wealth of the rich enough and the middle class will benefit.
"Germany, Norway, Sweden and many more have low unemployment, strong unions, trade surpluses and equitable distributions of income. And they trade with other countries to a much higher degree than we do. Yes, they have adapted very well. FDR would be quite proud of them and ashamed of what the US has become."
You quoted it but forgot to respond to it.
"You know that we can't ship jobs out of the country if we have tariffs that are high enough."
Is that a quote from Smoot, Hawley or Hoover? Too bad FDR never thought of that. He actually thought that tariffs discouraged trade and that they were a bad thing. Little did he know.
A wise man once posted "Nobody's saying that declining trade would lead to an improving economy."
I think he was right.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Then you might want to work on your debating skills. A growing working class completely negates your argument about tariffs being bad for China. A growing middle class is always good. Perhaps you do not comprehend what YOU write?
Your attempt to associate me with Rmoney is even more laughable. Romney wants to destroy the middle class. President Obama called him out for outsourcing American jobs. You think outsourcing is good. Romney is more a friend of you than me.
That's good for them. They also don't have 300 million people. Germany also has trade barriers which you keep refusing to acknowledge - taxes on imports AND product quality standards are just two of their barriers. It hasn't helped Germany much against China's trade war against the solar industry. China is killing Germany with cheap solar products. Norway and Sweden? Their economy could never support a population like ours. Perhaps if we cut our population down to less than 80 million people we could mimic them?
And you still have yet to accept the basic fact that strong union laws mean nothing when you can move your factory overseas.
Tariffs keep jobs from moving out of the country. Show me one example in history where heavy across-the-board tariffs against imports caused MORE offshoring. Please. Maybe you can find an FDR quote that shows this happened?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Quite Rovian!
pampango
(24,692 posts)
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)More DEMOCRATS oppose free trade than Republicans now.
http://www.industryweek.com/public-policy/made-america-gets-strong-backing-voters
Republicans (87%), Democrats (91%) and independents (87%) all favor Buy America policies, according to the survey released Monday by the Alliance of American Manufacturing.Even when presented with arguments from critics of Buy American about higher costs and increased taxes, voters supported Buy American policies by a wide margin.
The survey found that 53% of voters rate manufacturing as the industry "most important to the overall strength of the American economy."
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Anything on this page you DISAGREE with?
http://www.cato.org/globalization
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)




Zalatix
(8,994 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)that you disagree with on trade/globalization?
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2012Platform_Final.pdf
Some of my favorites from the Texas GOP platform:
We support U.S. withdrawal from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.
National Sovereignty We insist that the President and Congress defend our national sovereignty in accordance with their oaths of office. Therefore we believe the United States government must remain free of external control or influence, including, but not limited to, a North American Union and a security and prosperity partnership.
United Nations We support the withdrawal of the United States from the United Nations and the removal of U.N. headquarters from U.S. soil.
Law of the Sea Adopted by the UN in 1982, we still oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Cap and Trade We oppose Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax).
We all have 'strange bedfellows' in this debate. None us share the rationale behind the policies they espouse (assuming you don't share the rationale of the Texas GOP for opposing the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank.

Progressive worked hard to lower tariffs (a regressive tax on the working class in their view) in the late 1800's and early 1900's leading up to the passage of the constitutional amendment in 1913 creating an income tax as a progressive alternative source of government revenue compared to replace tariffs.
When republicans took office in 1921 the first thing they did was raise tariffs. FDR fought against that when he took office then, planning for the post-war world, sought to make it more difficult for republicans to raise tariffs again in the future by creating multilateral institutions like "the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank" (see above) to govern international trade and finance.
Republicans fought for high tariffs from 1880 to 1980 and against progressives and their goal of progressive income tax to replace the tariffs. In the 1980's republicans changed their position to that which Democrats and progressives had been espousing for 100 years in terms of tariffs. (Of course republicans never changed their opposition to the income tax - at least one that is progressive in nature.)
Whether you support of oppose globalization, tariffs, immigration and many other policies, it is easy to find groups whom you detest that agree with you. You know this as well as I do.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 15, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)
You won't stop posting this nonsense until every job has fled out of this country and EVERYONE is unemployed.
Every employed American is an affront to globalism.
Edited to add: You might also want to explain why Obama is attacking Romney over outsourcing jobs out of America. Your whole rant about anti-offshoring being a Right Wing thing loses TOTAL credibility in light of that.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And it is also irrelevant.
You are ill-equipped to deal with the fact that Americans, today, are united in their opposition to globalism and the walls that the world has put up to keep American workers out of the global labor force.
You are digging your cause's grave deeper and deeper every time you post this stuff. You're driving people away from your cause. But not nearly as much as reality itself is driving people away from globalism.
You are DESPERATE to make this a Republican thing when it is an EVERYONE thing. You know it, I know it, and I'm going to keep hammering this fact home because it is not only true, but also VERY demoralizing to the globalism crowd.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Are you saying that the progressive movement to replace tariffs with an income tax didn't happen (is not history) or that it is irrelevant today?
Are you saying that FDR did not reverse high tariffs when he came into office or that it is irrelevant today?
Are you saying that Europe does not have a much more progressive society and much lower tariffs or that is irrelevant to the US today?
You are DESPERATE to make this a Republican thing when it is an EVERYONE thing."
Historically, it is a republican thing. You seem to acknowledge this but discount its relevance. And historically lowering tariffs is a Democratic thing.
"You are digging your cause's grave deeper and deeper every time you post this stuff. You're driving people away from your cause.
I do my best to make my case. I try to put my history books and maps of the world to good use. But if I end up just helping you make your case, so be it. Happy to be of service.
OTOH, if your viewpoint is already an "EVERYONE thing" and "Americans, today, are united in their opposition to globalism", I can't drive any more people away from my cause. I think I'll keep it up. Thanks for the heads-up.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You are STILL desperate to make this a Republican thing despite the overwhelming and bipartisan opposition to globalism that has unfolded.
And yes, actually, you can drive more people away from your cause, but reality itself is far more effective in doing so.
President Obama is tapping into America's hatred of foreign outsourcing. One has to wonder why you have nothing to say to that... perhaps because it destroys everything else you've been saying???
pampango
(24,692 posts)Don't be using those republican campaign tactics on me. You know 'repeat the same thing enough time and people will start to believe it, even if it is not factual.' Remember 'facts have a liberal bias'. Don't be afraid of them. That's kind of a romney/ryan specialty. Wouldn't want to see a DU'er go down that path.
Unlike romney/ryan I invite you to fact check my historical claims.
How is the historical claim that progressives worked against high tariffs as a regressive tax on the working class wrong?
How is the historical claim that FDR reversed the high tariffs the republicans enacted wrong?
How is the current events assertion that Europe is a much more progressive place than the US in spite of (because of? ) their much higher level of 'free trade'.
"you can drive more people away from your cause..."
Glad you cleared that up. I thought I had already driven them all away.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Don't be afraid to admit you work for them. For free, even!
Romney supports outsourcing and has outsourced many American jobs. Your arguments support him. President Obama opposes him.
The fact that you have nothing to say to that, says volumes.
Much the same way that saying 1+1=3 and that aliens took Elvis is wrong.
Because FDR wasn't dealing with the monster trade deficits that we're dealing with.
They're on the verge of ruin with one country teetering on LEAVING the Euro and the Euro teetering on collapse. Germany has had it up to their eyeballs with bailing out financially distressed EU members (like Greece). European unemployment is as bad as the United States. Of course a few countries are winners, like Germany and Sweden, but you continue to refuse to recognize that overall, their unemployment is as sky-high as ours.
These distortions you keep posting, are why people don't want offshoring anymore.
America's working class doesn't want offshoring anymore. Can't you see that? Can't you just let us have our way instead of trying to force your way down our throats? We don't want it anymore. We will force it to go away. You need to accept that.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)over the weak has NEVER been "progressive". Never.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Your politics are indistinguishable from CATO's. That's not "strange bedfellows", that's "kith and kin".
I don't support ANY of those 5 propositions, while you support virtually everything CATO puts forward, including the "free trade--for PEACE" schlock. That's the difference between you and me: YOU spout rightwing ideology here continuously, and I don't.

Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If you are even a smidget correct then Obama is alienating his base.
Do you think he's alienating his base?
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)They have a much more independent press. They have more than two parties with a shot at winning elections. As does every other nation in the world that maintains sensible attitudes about defense spending, sensible attitudes about health care and sensible attitudes about lifestyle.
As one of the American people living in France told Michael Moore in his movie "Sicko"
"In America people are afraid of the government. Here in France, the government is afraid of the people."
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)....the Right Wing in France is expressing OUTRAGE that the new socialist President who has been improving things is having SEX!!!!
I mean,...how DARE a Frenchman,...oh,...wait,...that ain't gonna fly there...
France is probably the only country in the world where you can complain to your wife that your mistress doesn't understand you.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"France is probably the only country in the world where you can complain to your wife that your mistress doesn't understand you." .... that's not a good thing.
Just imagine if she started complaining to you that the man on the side doesn't understand her............
But hey, no nation is perfect.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)don't like Predatory Capitalism. Someone needs to sit them down and tell them that. I think we may be seeing the end of these predatory, failed and extremely harmful policies, and if anything it took far too long.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)JRLeft
(7,010 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)and it's all fraud. They want to "liberate" capital while keeping us peoples of this Earth captives behind the borders of nation states. Divide and conquer so that they can make us compete against each other for "jobs" in the race toward bottom so that we have less and less while they rob us more and more. "Jobs" just to serve their greed for money and power, "jobs" just to destroy the environment faster and faster.
We don't have to play that game and shouldn't, it's all rigged. All this talk about "jobs" is for one purpose only: to make us love our chains and prisons. If we fall into that trap and start competing for "jobs" and lose sight of bigger picture, we have already lost.
The real questions, good questions are not those served from the top. Questions like how do you feel? Do you like your job? Is it really necessary, or rather harmful to the planet and common good? What do you really want, in your heart? How can I help? Etc.
tama
(9,137 posts)Freedom of movement, no borders, global responsibility of our common planet - "think global, act local" -kinda globalist.
I'm opposed to the real anti-globalist movement of putting money before and over humans and all life that runs rampant and seeks the imperialist control of whole planet. The "neoliberal" and "neololonialist" anti-globalization and anti-Earth movement (capitalists) has called our resistance against destruction of our planet "anti-globalization". Not us.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)and your fear mongering is just boring.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)tama
(9,137 posts)just freedom. But I see it your fear that seeks power.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Among other certain disasters that will befall a borderless world.
Again, your fantasy is naive. I don't seek or need power. I'm pretty secure that you will never realize your dream of a borderless world.
tama
(9,137 posts)that I want any voters having a say about my reproductive rights??? How do you know?
Wrong. I don't want any voters or voted none so ever have power over my reproductive rights. I don't want anyone to boss me or others, not voters, not anybody. I don't give my right to veto away in any decisions concerning me.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If you tear down our borders, you guarantee that your rights will go away.
pampango
(24,692 posts)They seem to have more rights (certainly more equitable incomes, health care and stronger unions and safety net) than we do with our our much more jealously guarded borders and prized 'national sovereignty'.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)an entire world with open borders.
That brings 1 billion Muslims into the game, who don't believe in things like reproductive rights or even women being allowed to drive.
1 billion.
Then there's another billion Chinese, who ALSO don't believe in democracy OR reproductive rights.
pampango
(24,692 posts)When the countries around the world eventually opens its borders to each other, it won't be the result of the work of conservatives who treasure national sovereignty and distrust those 'others' out there. It will be the work of liberals as the opening of borders on the European continent was accomplished.
Oh yes there are a lot of scary foreigners out there that we should be afraid of. The US, unlike European countries, won't even open our borders to friendly countries like Canada that are very similar to us. To play the 'scary Muslim' and 'scary Chinese' card is a bit disingenuous. That's a republican scare tactic as far as I'm concerned.
After we open our borders with Canada and other friendly countries then we can talk about whether or how to do the same with countries who are more dissimilar. If you are saying that open borders with Canada is impossible because there are a billion scary Muslims and another billion scary Chinese out there, well the Canadians would have a nice chuckle at that rationalization.
Fundamentally people are people and share the same hopes and fears. You might be surprised at how many Muslims don't agree with misogyny but can't change what is imposed on them by their power structure. You might also be surprised by how many Chinese believe in democracy and human rights but can't change what is imposed on them by their power structure.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And... scary foreigners? Oh yeah, of course you don't think nations that forbid women's rights are scary. Or ones with One Child policies, either. The only way you can say that it's disingenuous is if you can claim that I'm factually wrong. Please, claim that women aren't oppressed in the Middle East. Please, claim right here that China doesn't have a One Child Policy. If you cannot, then what I said was NOT disingenuous.
If we open our borders to Canada we will practically subsume Canada. I can promise you that CANADA DOES NOT WANT THAT.
Your global open borders policy is naive. Fortunately it will never happen.
Have a nice day!
pampango
(24,692 posts)Canada may not want to open their border with us. I am not Canadian and will leave that decision to those who are.
My point here is to wonder why any Americans would be afraid of opening our border with Canada. You did not say that you oppose that idea. I look at that as a good thing.
Your global open borders policy is naive. Fortunately it will never happen.
You are probably right. It certainly will not happen in my lifetime, but that does not mean that it never will. The same thing was said in Europe in the first half of the 20th century but 30 countries have proven that it can happen and that it can lead to a very progressive result.
"The only way you can say that it's disingenuous is if you can claim that I'm factually wrong."
You are factually wrong in assuming that all Muslims believe that women should have no rights. Or that all Chinese believe in a one-child policy or don't appreciate democracy and human rights.
During the bush years, many foreigners undoubtedly wondered why Americans love to start wars, cut taxes for the rich and restrict women's access to reproductive rights. Of course official US policy did not mean that all Americans believed any of those things. And that was in a democracy. Imagine that you live in a dictatorship as most Chinese and Muslims do. How can you know that the official government policy of those countries is representative of what the people actually believe?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)We would utterly lay waste to their arboreal region.
Hell will freeze over first. Count on that.
Not all. But most. Enough that China will NEVER be democratic, and women will always be second class citizens in the Middle East.
We don't want that here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)WikiLeaks Haiti: Let Them Live on $3 a Day
http://www.thenation.com/article/161057/wikileaks-haiti-let-them-live-3-day
The factory owners told the Haitian Parliament that they were willing to give workers a 9-cents-per-hour pay increase to 31 cents per hour to make T-shirts, bras and underwear for US clothing giants like Dockers and Nautica.
But the factory owners refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day, as a measure unanimously passed by the Haitian Parliament in June 2009 would have mandated. And they had the vigorous backing of the US Agency for International Development and the US Embassy when they took that stand.
To resolve the impasse between the factory owners and Parliament, the State Department urged quick intervention by then Haitian President René Préval.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)So much for yet another drive-by post...
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)My Honda was built in Alabama and my Toyota was built in Indiana.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Like the right to show ankle without being raped or stoned to death.
America is unique for a reason: we have freedoms you can't find elsewhere. You give up those rights in a borderless world.
Perhaps you should call that basic fact 'xenophobic'. The truth must then be xenophobic.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)No wonder the quality of Hondas has been slipping! Honda deliberately chose the least educated part of the country (they work CHEAP though.)!
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Or not?
pampango
(24,692 posts)heavily in the recent election. Score another win for liberals.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Perhaps you'd like to acquaint yourself with the following before presenting your next lecture, hmmm?
https://news.google.com/
Zorra
(27,670 posts)cancer in the bodies of all sovereign democracies as well as Mother Earth.
The only possible cure is to cut out every bit of this deadly cancer ASAP before it metastasizes any further. Those who argue for globalism are like tobacco company spokespersons. They really do understand that globalism is killing those who use it, but globalism is so profitable that, in their greed, they refuse to stop selling their deadly product.
Vive la France!
Marcos, in the mid-90's:
But neoliberalism not only fragments the world it pretends to unite, it also produces the political economic center that conducts this war. And yes, as we referred to before, the financial centers impose their (laws of the market) to nations and grouping of nations, and so we should redefine the limits and reaches pursued by the policy, in other words, duties of political work. It is convenient than to speak of Megapolitics> Here is where the "world order" would be decided.
And when we say "megapolitics" we don't refer to the number of those who move in them. There are a few, very few, who find themselves in this "megasphere". Megapolitics globalizes national politics, in other words, it subjects it to a direction that has global interests (that for the most part are contradictory to national interests) and whose logic is that of the market, which is to say, of economic profit. With this economist (and criminal) criteria, wars, credits, selling and buying of merchandise, diplomatic acknowledgements, commercial blocks, political supports, migration laws, coups, repressions, elections, international political unity, political ruptures and investments are decided upon. In short the survival of entire nations.
The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dict ates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . . .


Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Tariffs imposed on movements of goods between France and Germany? And Belgium and Switzerland? Funny, Germany, Denmark and Switzerland have low unemployment (compared to the US) and universal health care, while being big free trade participants.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)before lecturing others!
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)corporations not people. Damn!!! Hard to believe that Democrats don't see this from the great good it has given the working people of America and other top tier nations. I am all for the betterment of impoverished nations but that should only be by helping them with the tools to create locally and to supply their own country.
brewens
(15,359 posts)hold no cards at all. Usually to benefit just a few people.
It might be different if we were adjusting wages and working hours in this country. If you could earn 40 thousand a year in some service industry working 30 hours a week and get low priced goods made in other countries, we'd probably think that was okay.
The way it's going they want you to work 60 hours a week for a decent paycheck a lot of places. I know driver/sales types that just accept that as the way it's always been. I did it for several years. You have four guys working where there should be at least five and we wonder how unemployment is high.