Look at the responses to this editorial urging "free" trade: (shameless dupe)

[L0oniX]

<snip>Here's the original typical corporatist blather article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/opinion/11wed1.html?_r=1

Now look at the readers' responses:

http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2009/03/11/opinion/11wed1.html

Guess whose comment has the highest number of recommendations.
Here it is:

In too many cases, "free" trade is just freedom for large corporations to go after cheap labor to make cheap products for underemployed Americans to buy, since these Americans no longer afford American products. It's what one writer called "the race to the bottom."

There is smart free trade and dumb free trade. Smart free trade consists of obtaining resources and products that your own country cannot make on its own. Dumb free trade consists of obtaining EVERYTHING from other countries, including resources and products that your own country used to make on its own.

Smart free trade occurs among countries of similar economic standing. Dumb free trade occurs between rich countries and poor countries. Free trade between the U.S. and Canada makes sense (if only it included free immigration between the countries), but free trade between the U.S. and Mexico does not. On the other hand, a free trade zone encompassing Mexico and the Central American and Caribbean countries would make a great deal of sense. Each poor country would trade on its strengths and develop the domestic industries that made the most sense for it.

Under dumb free trade, poor countries neglect their own food crops and domestic industries in order to provide cash crops and act as sweatshops for rich countries. Never mind that the countries that have actually made the transition from Third World to First World have been highly protectionist.

However it looks to a New York Times columnist, those of us in the real world see lost jobs, devastated towns, and big box stores selling shoddy products.

"Free" trade apologists accuse us skeptics of not caring about the Third World, but would it not be better for Third World countries to build up their agricultural sectors to provide food for domestic consumption (as China did) instead of concentrating on cash crops for the First World while their own food producers are driven to bankruptcy by cheap surplus food from the First World? Would it not be better for Third World manufacturers to be licensed to produce products for their own regions instead of being allowed to flood First World markets with cheap goods?

What's good for the multinational corporations is rarely good for the average American.

Not only that, but I'd say at least 85 of the 94 respondents essentially agreed. The rest were either hardcore corporatists or sophomore economics students, I would guess.<un-snip>

 
I just wanted to post this because this dudes response is just so right on and deserves to be spread around and repeated to the ignorant pro free trade idiots.

[L0oniX]

1. Shameless kick.

[Warpy]

2. Thank you! I'll be having sweet dreams tonight

knowing so many intelligent, articulate people have finally gotten the point that our trade is free while the countries that waltzed off with our industrial infrastructure are highly protectionist.

Any jobs based on renewable energy (which will make their products highly competitive in the long run) have got to be protected and kept in this country. That means common sense protectionism and stiff penalties for greedball CEO types who think they can shave off enough labor cost to give them a big bonus if they ship the jobs elsewhere.

Dogma be damned. This country is now fighting for its life.

[L0oniX]

13. Indeed ...we are fighting for the life of our country.

[smalll]

3. "Smart trade/dumb trade" -- that comment has re-invented the hoary old square wheel called ...

MERCANTILISM!

Anyone who knew the long history of progress would know about the Corn Laws and about men like Cobden. Of course very few people do. Those who forget true progressivism are doomed to repeat conservatism. :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

6. What is the true progressivism?

The "free traders" seem to be calling for the same 'ol economic liberalism.

[pacalo]

4. I just clicked on the link for readers' comments & they're showing only 5 comments.

Yours isn't one of them, yet it was a wonderfully written opinion.

Oh, & "comments are no longer being accepted".

We're supposed to accept what their columnists write, but, apparently, they can't accept differing opinions that are rated higher than the column itself.

:shrug:

On edit, I clicked on the editorial link you provided, then the "read all comments" link, then clicked on "oldest first" in the scroll window, & I was able to see all the comments.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. +1

I, for one, am sooo tired of being accused of "racism" and "xenophobia" by free trade asshats. They need to check their own paternalistic, racist, classist, and elitist attitudes. They presume that every American worker is white and well-educated. They then claim that outsourcing will lead to "better" jobs or awesome entrepreneurial opportunities for Americans, while it never occurs to them that THEY are essentially advocating for turning the rest of the world into a servile underclass. Then, when their promises of a grand and lucrative service economy in the U.S. don't come to fruition and the whole fucking thing collapses, they whine about "protectionism". Fuck them. No, seriously, fuck them.

The commenter to the NYT editorial is right. Every country should do its utmost to produce as much as it can for its own citizens. There's no need to import something if it can be made or grown in your own country. I would much rather give aid to another country (like Mexico) to help it get on its own feet than export domestic industries there. No kid from Mexico or Latin America goes to bed at night dreaming about how he or she can one day toil in a maquialadora or travel 3000 miles away to pick tomatoes for a bunch of gringo assholes. So let's stop acting like immigration and outsourcing is such a boon for them. It's not.

[Elwood P Dowd]

7. There are still some "free trade asshats" , as you call them , that hang around here on DU,

but thankfully their numbers are down to less than half a dozen brainwashed fools who refuse to face reality.

[L0oniX]

14. "hardcore corporatists or sophomore economics students" ...I like that description.

[anonymous171]

8. Good post

No kid from Mexico or Latin America goes to bed at night dreaming about how he or she can one day toil in a maquialadora or travel 3000 miles away to pick tomatoes for a bunch of gringo assholes. So let's stop acting like immigration and outsourcing is such a boon for them. It's not.

AMEN!

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Error: You've already recommended that thread.

Oops. I tried to rec it again.

[HughBeaumont]

10. "Free Trade": The Moldy Reaganite Bill of Goods.

FAIR trade would include labor protections and safety regulations for foreign workers, something that doesn't exist under the unbridled capitalist model now. FAIR trade would include corporate regulations of some sort and eliminate corporate personhood. FAIR trade would have to include a better plan for re-entering displaced workers into equivalent wages at equivalent careers. Maybe FAIR trade should also include provisos that no worker should have to fend for their damned selves when they're axed through no fault or choice of their own, but because they simply weren't cheap enough.

All "free trade" does is plunge the middle classes of ALL nations to the bottom of the well, especially ours. Indian wages are already rising, leaving corporations to look for even cheaper nations. Even with the wage increase, it isn't like they live in astounding conditions. Their infrastructure and pollution problems still exist, as does the overcrowding and outdated utilities.

A strong economy is supposed to accommodate EVERYBODY at a liveable wage, not just the heavily degreed and privileged.

Free trade is the 20th century snake-oil that benefits the CAPITAL of the country, not the labor, and we're STILL believing that if we give it just enough time, we'll all see the benefits. BUNK. Also, retraining is a crock when you don't even know what you're re-training for, nor do you know that the career you choose isn't going to follow it's predecessor offshore or be subject to the wage-ravaging phenomenon spawned from . .. er. . . "competitiveness".

Anyone who thinks free trade is great should come to Northeast Ohio and the ghost-towns that litter it sometime and look first-hand at the cost. Go to any of the small towns in America that used to thrive, but now have boarded up, weed-infested buildings and lots. Look at all the vacant office space in most mid-market cities.

When an economist can come up with a benevolent model that truly lifts ALL boats, then I'll start listening and believing them. Until then, I just see them as puppet defenders of the Republican agenda who's sole M.O. is to drown the middle class in favor of a low-paid and forever fearful populace that the elites are "destined" to rule over.

[L0oniX]

15. You could say they are eCONomists.

When Clinton got NAFTA past I knew this all was going to happen. I believed Ross when he said there would be this huge sucking sound of jobs leaving this country. I didn't like Clinton because of NAFTA and didn't vote for Hillary because of this Clinton legacy of which we are now feeling the full impact.

[pampango]

11. What's the difference between a Mexican and an American?

A Canadian and an American? A Kenyan and an American?

[Greyhound]

12. Where they live?

[pampango]

17. Actually, in almost all cases, it's where they are born.

As with many other characteristics of one's birth, such as skin color, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity, your place of birth (and, therefore, your nationality) is something you have no control over. Progressives would not think of using skin color, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity as criteria in an employment decision.

[Greyhound]

19. All true and none of which has anything to do with the "free trade" issue. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

16. How much they're willing to work for and the conditions they will tolerate?

I mean, surely you are familiar with that classist, racist, and offensive phrase "jobs Americans won't do" aren't you? It was coined by cheap labor apologists like you. Let's you profit from exploiting people while convincing yourself you're a citizen of the world.

[pampango]

20. You're the one who just said "How much they're willing to work for and the conditions they will

tolerate?". I am indeed familiar with the "classist, racist, and offensive phrase "jobs Americans won't do"". I have not used it, but you have apparently bought into it, given what you just wrote.

I don't call people names. I do not assume that you are racist, classist, or xenophobic. I'd appreciate similar treatment from you, though if throwing around "cheap labor apologist" at people who don't agree with you makes the world simpler for you, far be it from me to complicate your world.

"Let's you profit from exploiting people..."

Though you didn't explain the nature of my "profit" I will assume it is the slightly lower cost of some things that I buy. Fine. That is true (though hardly the reason for what I believe in). Many, but perhaps not you depending on how you shop and what you buy, will similarly benefit a little from the presence (exploiting) of immigrant labor.

On the other hand, if you or I force someone to live in poverty because it benefits us, are we not "exploiting" that person? If we force immigrant labor to stay home in poverty, are we not "exploiting" them for our benefit?

"...while convincing yourself you're a citizen of the world."

As far as being a citizen of the world, we all are. Progressives are just better at realizing that reality than conservatives are. We know that no country is an "island". The global environment does not respect national boundaries. People are people and problems in one part of the world will eventually affect all of us. We may be able to wall them off for a while, maybe a long while, but not forever.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. The global environment sure doesn't respect national boundaries

Shipping all that cheap crap from thousands of miles away contributes quite a bit to global warming. Yet another reason to bring production back here. :thumbsup:

Though you didn't explain the nature of my "profit" I will assume it is the slightly lower cost of some things that I buy. Fine. That is true (though hardly the reason for what I believe in). Many, but perhaps not you depending on how you shop and what you buy, will similarly benefit a little from the presence (exploiting) of immigrant labor.

This argument is hilarious. We "benefit" from cheaper goods because they are all most people can afford on their stagnant wages.

On the other hand, if you or I force someone to live in poverty because it benefits us, are we not "exploiting" that person? If we force immigrant labor to stay home in poverty, are we not "exploiting" them for our benefit?

Or maybe devoloped countries could give aid to poor countries (real aid not bullshit IMF "loans" that serve as an excuse to plunder the natural resources of a country and keep in in perpetual servitude) to get them on their feet and help them develop local industries. All "free trade" has done is plop down big old filth-belching factories where people can work 14 hours a day making plastic junk for Americans. Or they can come up here and pick tomatoes for gringoes. Yippee.

Face it. Just like "trickle down", "globalism" is a big fat failure. Every major country is having to bail out its banks and manufacturers right now. It's time for a paradigm shift.

[pampango]

22. You said I "profited" from "exploiting" people, but didn't explain how. I took a guess.

If I was wrong, please enlighten me as to what you meant by my "profit".

I agree that developed countries can give aid to poor countries. The amount the US spends on foreign aid is paltry compared to most other rich countries. I don't see the political climate here to greatly increase our contributions, but perhaps the influence of President Obama will change that.

"Globalism" as you call it, is a fact of life. We all live on the same globe and the actions taken by people in one country affect people in other countries. There are so many people in the world, producing and consuming so much stuff that we will affect each other whether we wish to acknowledge it or not. Conservatives believe in "cowboy diplomacy", "America first", "can't even understand what that furiner is saying", "what's good for the US is all that matters. To hell with the rest of the world". Those are not progressive sentiments.

You make it sound like it is evil to negotiate agreements with other countries and then live up to them; to belong to international organizations (like the UN and, I hope, Kyoto) because we might have to give up a little of our "sovereignty"; to consider the impact of our actions (economic, political, military, environmental, etc) on other countries and seek to have them do the same with respect to us. Is your perfect world one in which each country has as little to do with the others as possible? Everyone builds up walls and keep out the people and products from other countries to the extent possible? Sounds a little isolationist, which in the past has been a world view consistent conservative philosophy not liberal. Perhaps liberals are learning the beauty of isolationism?

I have come to anticipate the accusation that I just want to get together and sing "Kumbaya" with everyone in the world. I am used to hearing that from conservatives (especially some now deceased family members), but it still surprises me to hear it from liberals.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. Once again you resort to comparing me to a right winger

If you're going to keep doing that, then you really have no grounds to complain about being called a cheap labor apologist.

Is your perfect world one in which each country has as little to do with the others as possible? Everyone builds up walls and keep out the people and products from other countries to the extent possible? Sounds a little isolationist, which in the past has been a world view consistent conservative philosophy not liberal. Perhaps liberals are learning the beauty of isolationism?


Ooooh you called me "isolationist"! Oh noes!1! :eyes: Please. That shit only works on your fellow slave labor fans. What is your perfect world? A race to the bottom where multinational corps. trawl the earth for the cheapest labor and the most lax environmental standards while raking in the profits until the whole thing collapes and they get bailed out, lather rinse repeat? Well, pal, you're living in it.

[pampango]

24. "Sounds a little isolationist" is not quite as direct as calling someone a "cheap labor apoloigist"

or a "slave labor fan". How about I "sound a little globalist"?

While I characterize your positions, I make no attempt to call you "isolationist", "racist", "xenophobe" or anything else. If you were any of those things (or if I was a "cheap labor apologist" or "slave labor fan"), you and I would not belong to DU and be as active as we are. (I imagine that, if I went to freeperville and posted my thoughts on the value of international agreements and organizations, a view of immigrant labor that didn't end with "Build the wall higher", , I would be tombstoned in a matter of minutes. )

My impression is that a person's nationality is the last "birth characteristic" trait that can be legally used to limit competition for jobs. No progressive would consider using race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation or age to limit or expand access to jobs. Of course, throughout history, more recently in some cases, and still today in others, these birth factors have been "legally" (accepted by the laws and customs in a different time and place) used to exclude people from the labor market and limit the competition for jobs. When practiced today, all of us would consider that wrong.

I think it was Napolean who said that it was hard to convince a recruit to risk death for the sake of the king, but much easier to convince him to do so for the nation of France. Nationalism and patriotism are powerful forces today. One's nationality (at least 99.9% of the time) is a function of where you were born (which you had no control over). Many people who would never think of using any other birth characteristic as a factor in the job market, will easily say, "We can't hire you because you are (that nationality), while we are (this nationality). " It is a perfectly legal and, in our time, acceptable mechanism to limit competition for jobs. Maybe one day, we will get beyond that and view nationality (if it still exists) the way we look at race, gender and the other factors today - you're born with it, it makes you who you are, but beyond that - who cares.

While I love my country and its people, I am convinced, Hello-Kitty, that you are more patriotic than I am. We all value our families first, followed by our neighbors, the people we work with or volunteer with or play with, our city and/or state, then our fellow citizens and lastly other people in the world. I think that, when it comes to any tradeoff between the welfare of Americans and that of non-Americans, you give even more weight to the Americans' and less to the foreigners' than I. That's why I think that you are neither a racist nor a classist, you are a patriot. :)

[HughBeaumont]

18. Wage disparity, mostly.

In the case of Mexico and Kenya, what they call a yearly living wage wouldn't pay our mortgages for five months.

Canada's taxes are slightly higher than ours are, and they don't have to worry about being thrown out in the street if they commit the unfortunate crime of getting sick. Mexico hopes to get universal health care by 2011.