Originally posted by pfflam
Disregarding, of course, the fact that this represents the TOTAL hipocrisy of the Conservative mindset as it operates in the US:
Man you are such a bullshit artist. There are aspects of both the left and right that endorse free or fair trade respectively. The problem is of course that when the left endorses fair trade, they aren't called racist. Likewise when the left endorses free trade they aren't called corporate raiders, globalists, and robber barrons.
There are plenty of folks on the right who happen to endorse only fair trade. I happen to be one of them.
We can absolutely FORCE developing countries to adopt "Fair Trade" and make it a stipulation on their Emergency Loans, and thereby undercut their whole economies with our government subsidized exports (just the tip of the iceberg here too)
Well obviously that wouldn't be my definition of fair trade would it. Could you start with less hyperbole or do you just enjoy ranting?
The reality is that free traders consider the U.S. to be generating excessive jobs. The jobs that become too expensive to keep here are considered shipped off overseas via free trade. That is why people will call fair traders racist when they suggest keeping all the manufactering/union type jobs here. It doesn't put an American out of work. That has already happened. It puts someone in Mexico, or China out of work.
However when you basically allow those jobs to become high paying but unskilled union type work, then nobody wants them shipped overseas. Who wouldn't want to make $100k a year as a longshoreman for example.
It is easy even for someone not as politically blind as yourself that when you adopt American safety standards, pensions, healthcare and wages, there isn't an advantage that you gain from shipping the job overseas. When Dean says he is bringing up the standards on the foreign soil side, it is just another way of saying tariff.
However, when actual Free Trade threatens our own industry we hippocritically deploy tariffs
Why do I even need to point out the deep hippocrisy here!!!!!!!
What is the real interest?: PROFIT
And the way to stop this flight to the bottom is...what? Consider that you contend we have to not only stop it for ourselves but for the entire world. How is that possible? If we stop it at home by using protective measures then we are racist, hypocritical, etc. We can't even be sure we could stop it from abroad. I've ready articles where Mexico is losing manufactoring jobs to China now. We don't control either of those two countries. The only we can put a stop to this is here at home. Doing so doesn't make us racist. It doesn't mean we want to harm other countries. It just means we are going to stop the race to the bottom here first.
Let it be known: I AM FOR TARIFFS. however, they cannot be selective and only for the powerful, and, they must be something that the importing country can decide to impose in order to save their local industry . . .
if we can impose tariffs then Third World Countries should be allowed to impose tariffs!
It is worse than the Mafia really!!! I mean, whole countries' economies are at stake . . . large populations kept in poverty (look at Jamaica!!) so that we can force subsidized imports as well as strong arm them into accepting "TAX FREE ZONES" which amount to SLAVE LABOR CAMPS!!!
I don't think the Bush tariffs have only been used to protect the powerful. Textile industries are mostly in the rural south and around parts of California. Steel production is hardly considered a Bush ally. I think it is that middle ground. The U.S. knows it is going to shed jobs in certain industries abroad for lower cost. However we can't just have the entire industry systematically stamped out and destroyed. We keep some of the jobs here. They are unionized, they often make more than is justified and as a result they need periodic protection when the competitive pressures bite too hard. It is the middle ground. The other path would entail basically shipping that entire industry off shore. That would give the fair traders (like me) too much of an argument for raising more tariffs. "Hey we don't even make steel in the U.S. anymore! It is all imported."
Instead they can say we make some, but not all of what we need. We ship plenty of jobs away and the middle ground is struck that makes us mostly free but occasionally caving when the political pressure gets to be too much or when an entire industry really is in danger of disappearing domestically.
I'm not saying I endorse this. I'm saying it is what has been done to keep fair traders from getting a foothold in the arena of ideas regarding this issue. It is why the majority of the left and the right have managed to do what they have done with it. But don't go making it some bullshit conservative conspiratorial fable when Clinton signed NAFTA and made the environmental and worker protection promises that were broken. (in 1993 for you conspiracy nutjobs out there)
We should also understand that it is really in our interest to aid countries to develop their infrastructure where there is none . . . . and dare I say it, in many developing countries, that means that they should have a measure of "SOCIALISM"; where there are certain services that are taken care of in a not-for-profit manner (medicine, low cost housing). . . until that country has the infrastructure, (AND A LOCAL ONE TOO not a string of Burger Kings!!) necessary to allow private economic development and growth!.
"in the long run" it would grease the skids of equitable global economic development without stunting real human lives
I agree but realize that the left and the right have sold up the common man in this instance.