The U.S. continues to lurch down the rubble-strewn path of free-trade fantasy economics, signing yet more trade agreements (Panama, Colombia, Korea) when the ones we already have haven't delivered as promised.
Why?
One big part of the reason, I think, is that the public has been brainwashed by decades of television and other reportage into thinking that trade and free trade are the same thing. And since everyone who's ever eaten a banana instinctively grasps the value of trade, free trade just follows as a matter of course.
You wouldn't want us to end up like North Korea, would you? Of course not.
That's why I've made this little video pointing out the difference between trade and free trade:
Now, if the public would only begin to grasp the difference between free trade (the chalkboard fantasy) and "free" trade (which we actually have). The game is rigged, folks.
After that, we can move on to the difference between free trade and free trade agreements. These are not the same thing at all, as most of NAFTA and the other treaties concern investments and the right to override laws that interfere with their profitability.
Follow Ian Fletcher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/IanFletcher
Sadly, it's easy to cause a self-esteem crisis--where we all believe that the system is fair in a trade or income sense and that we deserve what we get if we just can't "compete." Well, it isn't fair and we have a right and obligation to future generations to demand that it be made more fair. But to get to that point we have to remember that fair is often more important than free. I don't mind not being "free" to commit murder; but I do insist on being treated fairly if accused of it. If "free" trade means that it is free to exploit low, third world labor prices at the expense of the last Super Power's economic viability; I think it's a kind of freedom we would do well to be without.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqA1Se-fyCU&feature=related
You're really good answering questions, very quick on your feet unlike politicians who anyone can tell are thinking of the best lie they can come up with; you can literally see the manipulations and lies forming in the politician's mind as text moving across their forehead.
Thank you.
http://www.koreauspartnership.org/
From a pharmaceutical perspective, this bill will rake in billions because these companies made a push to limit generics in the Korean market which will then force the Korean consumer & its government to pay for the same monopolistic prices that we suffer with. This is not free trade. This is fascism. Real free trade would actually benefit us. Unfortunately, no one in this country really understands what it actually is.
In his 1817 classic, On the Principles of Political Economy, and Taxation, David Ricardo warned that, war, the removal of capital and a new tax are destroyers of the comparative advantage which a country before possessed in manufacturing. During the last two decades, two new taxes or de facto taxes (act like taxes) have contributed to the destruction of the comparative advantage which the United States previously possessed as an exporter. These changes have not arisen by actions of the U.S. Government but by actions of one or more of our trading partners; however they continue because of the non-responsiveness of our federal leaders. At least since the mid-1990s the following de facto tax changes or actual tax changes have occurred:
- A change that has the effect of a new tax, namely China's manipulation of the U.S. Dollar; which acts as a tax on all U.S. exports and a reverse-tax on all imports coming into the U.S.
- The enactment of value added taxes (VATs), which tax U.S., exports, by an increasing number of our trading partners, generally at higher tax rates since enactment.
"The U.S. trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to `political turmoil.' Pretty soon, I think there will be a big adjustment." – Warren Buffett, January, 2006
â–ª We need to put our 'trade house' in order
â–ª We are ignoring the cost of our current policies re: trade (& they're no longer 'hidden costs')
â–ª The fantasies perpetuated by 'free trade' & 'free market' enthusiasts (fanatics) are undermining reality based problem solving
â–ª I agree reciprocal or balanced trade rules or agreements, along with tariff-protected economic policies are most likely our best & most plausible option for 'getting there'
What I don't really understand is how we can 'get tough' on countries who aren't following the rules? Their trade policies are working fine. For them.
It made me think of the list put out by the Dalai Lama at the beginning of the new millennium. It starts out with:
1. Take into account that great love & great achievements involve great risk.
2. When you lose, don’t lose the lesson.
3. Follow the three Rs: Respect for self, Respect for others, & Responsibility for all your actions.
4. Remember that not getting what you want is sometimes a wonderful stroke of luck.
5. Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly. (Does this one remind you of anyone?)
6. Don’t let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
7. When you realize you’ve made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
8. Spend some time alone every day.
9. Open your arms to change, ...
http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2006/20060303-Fri.html
Globalization's New Underclass
"Stephen Roach (New York)
Billed as the great equalizer between the rich and the poor, globalization has been anything but. An increasingly integrated global economy is facing the strains of widening income disparities -- within countries and across countries. This has given rise to a new and rapidly expanding underclass that is redefining the political landscape. The growing risks of protectionism are an outgrowth of this ominous trend.
It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Globalization has long been portrayed as the rising tide that lifts all boats. The surprise is in the tide -- a rapid surge of IT-enabled connectivity that has pushed the global labor arbitrage quickly up the value chain. Only the elite at the upper end of the occupational hierarchy have been spared the pressures of an increasingly brutal wage compression. The rich are, indeed, getting richer but the rest of the workforce is not. This spells mounting disparities in the income distribution -- for developed and developing countries, alike.
The United States and China exemplify the full range of pressures bearing down on the income distribution. With per capita income of $38,000 and $1,700, respectively, the US and China are at opposite ends of the global income spectrum..."
The main points of neo-liberalism include:
1. THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating "free" enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government no matter how much social or economic damage this causes.
2. CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care, …… maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply -- in the name of reducing government's role. Of course, they don't oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.
3. DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environment……..
4. PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, natural resources and services to private investors……. and making the public pay even more for its needs.
5. ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF "THE PUBLIC GOOD" or "COMMUNITY" and replacing it with "individual responsibility." Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves -- then blaming them, if they fail, as "lazy."
See corpwatch and global issues for more information.
The very design of neoliberal principles is a direct attack on democracy.†- Noam Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects
Yes, for decades, the orthodox view on free trade has been strong and simple: countries do what they do best, and everyone ends up a winner
Until now, any politician who questioned the universal benefits of free trade was ridiculed as a flat-earth type or a stooge for some declining industry or overpaid union whose work was best performed by lower-wage workers overseas so other US consumers could benefit. This foreclosed a whole range of policy questions from debate.
Paul A. Samuelson in Sept 27, 2004 was challengeing the orthodox of “Free Tradeâ€
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Samuelson is challenging conventional “win-win†assumptions about free trade. The low-wage, high-innovation economies of China and India, he says, demand a second look. Americans may be losing big and Samuelson is out to set the record straight.
Question:
But what, then, should Americans do to defend their living standard in the face of the ability of India and China to make almost anything we make at a fraction of the wage?
Samuelson awnser:
First, we might insist that everyone plays by the rules, which China emphatically doesn't. China both subsidizes and protects.
Second, we might try to get them to raise their domestic wages in proportion to their rising productivity and thus produce for a more affluent domestic market (which also might buy more of our products).
Forty percent of the planet lives in two countries, China and India. In the prosperous regions, a worker earns about $200 per month. Manufacturing, mining, and agriculture are the first affected industries, but eventually, the whole economy will adjust.
For example, if one is a teacher, doctor, or lawyer, eventually one's wages will adjust to the general economy's scale.
But don't count on China and India saving us from ourselves.
Reference: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10173