Fair Trade

Costa Rica on Sunday will become the first country where citizens have the opportunity to vote for or against a trade agreement. Despite being heavily outspent by the moneyed interests, despite opposition from the Costa Rican government and the U.S. ambassador, despite an extremely hostile media, the latest polls show momentum building for the opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Incredibly, just the other day, in a nation of only 4 million people, more than 100,000 marched in opposition to the treaty -- a sign of the deep grassroots opposition there to CAFTA.

Free trade is very good for the large multinational corporations who can throw American workers out on the street, move abroad to China and other low-wage countries, hire people there for pennies an hour, and bring their products back into this country. For those people, for the CEOs of large corporations, unfettered free trade has been a very good thing, but for the middle-class and working families of this country, for working families and poor people in Mexico and in other low-wage countries, unfettered free trade has been an unmitigated disaster.

Increasingly, trade policy is not a partisan issue. The vast majority of Republicans now have serious concerns about our current trade policies because they see those trade policies as being harmful to the middle class and working families of this country, according to a new poll. "By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president. The sign of broadening resistance to globalization came in a new Wall Street Journal-NBC News Poll that showed a fraying of Republican Party orthodoxy on the economy," The Wall Street Journal reported in a page-one news story on Thursday.

Meanwhile, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, the pundits for the plutocrats, twice this week weighed in on what it thinks is good for the people of Costa Rica. They also had a thing or two to say about me.

My trip to Costa Rica last month was not about telling the people there how to vote. That's their business, not mine. The trip that Rep. Mike Michaud and I made was to help counter the lies being spread in Costa Rica that suggested that if the people there, exercising their democratic rights, voted "no" on Cafta, the U.S. government would punish them by excluding them from the Caribbean Basin Initiative as well as other punitive actions.

While I strongly disagree with the Journal editorial page's right-wing ideology, I'll give them points for persistence. Year after year, despite all of the evidence, the Journal has continued to be a cheerleader for the unfettered free-trade policies that, while benefiting multinational corporations, have caused so much economic pain for working families here in the U.S. and our trading partners abroad.

There may be disagreement on the merits of unfettered free trade, but there should be no disagreement that when the people in a free, democratic and independent country like Costa Rica vote their conscience they should not be punished by the world's superpower. That is not what democracy is about.

A Journal columnist, Mary Anastasia O'Grady, wrote last Monday about how wonderful passage of the trade agreement will be for the people of Costa Rica. The Journal said the exact same thing to the people of Mexico during the 1993 debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement.

What happened with the passage of Nafta? In Mexico, the agricultural sector has been decimated by cheap exports from American agribusiness. Poverty has increased, the middle class has declined and people are literally dying in the desert trying to flee Mexico for the U.S. Working families in Mexico suffer, the rich have gotten richer and we now have the obscenity of the wealthiest person in the world, Mexican Carlos Slim Helu, coming from a country in which millions of families struggle to feed their children. This may be the kind of economic development championed by you, but not by me. We can have trade policies that can do better, that must do better.

It's not only Mexico and other developing countries that have been hurt by these unfettered pro-corporate free-trade agreements. It's also the working families in the U.S. who are now engaged in a horrendous "race to the bottom."

Despite an explosion of technology and a huge increase in worker productivity, poverty in America is increasing, the middle class is shrinking, and the gap between the rich and the poor is growing wider. In the past six years, millions of good-paying jobs in the U.S. have been lost as companies shut down here and move to China and other low-wage countries.

During that same period, median household income for working-age families has declined by about $2,500, 8.6 million Americans have lost their health insurance, three million have lost their pensions, and millions are working longer hours for lower wages. Meanwhile, the gap between the rich and the poor in the U.S. is now the highest of any industrialized country and greater than at any time since the 1920s.

Nobody I know believes we should place a wall around this country. Trade is a good thing, but what we must begin doing is negotiating fair trade agreements that reflect the interests of working families in America, working families in other countries, and not just large multinational corporations and the CEOs who help write these trade agreements.

Comments

[RSOlive]

I would dearly love to know if Senator Sanders has had an opportunity to speak directly to Senator Obama about the latter's statement that he intends to support the current proposed "free" trade agreements, in part because they are being supported by organized labor. Of course organized labor remains vehemently opposed to these agreements that began when five presidents stood shoulder to shoulder and told labor these were good for the world and good for America.

[godlessclif]

To Repugs "free trade" means getting permission from the WTO[world trade organization] to trade, The WTO is run by the big multinationals so no trade is allowed that does not benefit them.

[CSH]

What you didn't see was the American Embassador basically threatening Costa Rica with the repercussions of voting "NO". He was on TV and all over the place. Schwabs comments were all over the place and people who I knew were voting no told me they had changed their minds out of fear.

[sinnerjizm]

Everyone should read naomi Klein's new book: 'The Shock Doctrine'


I really think that we are doomed

[sculptor]

You're right, free trade isn't fair trade. Globalization must sease to be a race to the bottom. Instead, is has to be about raising the level of the bottom.

[frost]

.

FREE TRADE IS A RACE TO THE BOTTOM..
.

[poopdeck]

Who are the principal beneficiaries from Free Trade Agreements? The traders.

[CSH]

Costa Rica is a valiant little country, all they are asking for is the right to a free trade agreement on an equal playing field. Costa Rica, a Democratic country, has high social costs to maintain in any commercial endeavour, national medecine, pension, and free education, none of the other signatories to CAFTA have anything similar (and that includes us).
Costa Rica has been an ally to the US in Latin America, the veiled threats from the US administration should CAFTA not pass are an insult to Democracies around the world. If other countries elected the same playing field they would not be a threat to jobs at home.

[Boadicea]

I don't disagree with you, Senator. Trade is good, but there are problems with the treaties we've negotiated.

But I don't agree that the growing divide in America between socio-economic groups is due to trade. I think this is a false equation, and creates the wrong approach to the problem. It encourages Americans to blame other countries for their problems, something they already do to much too great an extent.

Canada also signed NAFTA, which the US unfettered access to that market and allowed Canadian businesses to operate here, essentially for the first time. Yet the Canadian middle class has grown steadily ever since. The shrinking middle class in America has more to do with what goes on inside our own borders than it has to do with trade regulations.

We spend all of our tax dollars on war instead of health care, and for this reason, many companies choose elsewhere to locate manufacturing plants. We thumb our noses at the UN, where a lot of problems actually do get solved, and thus we have fewer and fewer friends in the world. We are greedy - we want tons of consumer goods at very low prices. We want our oil at very low prices. We want huge houses that have enough room to hold all of our consumer goods, and garages big enough to hold all of our SUVs.

I read up on Helu, and essentially what he did to make his millions was to take advantage of the lack of technological development in his country. This is not new. It's the same route that every self-made wealthy person in America has followed to amass a fortune, from the revolution through the civil war and the world wars. Railroads, telephone, automobiles, computers.... There is always an entrepreneural spirit at the start.

So while I agree with your premise, that our trade agreements need attention, I don't agree that they are to blame for our economic woes.

[MilwaukeeMike]

Well stated.

[avraamjack]

.
Thank God for Senator Sanders.
.
Also, If the Democrats really want to win, they need to draft a Gore/Kerry ticket - not that there is anything wrong with the others running of course.
.
Gore/Kerry would be a landslide. The others may win but it will be tough.
.

[racom]

Gore is good, forget Kerry. The dems should have won in 04, Kerry is the reason why we lost. Match Gore up with almost any of the other candidates, save Hillary, and we can win! If Kerry or Hillary should be the candidate in 08 and I will not be the only voter staying home. BTW, ask Kerry what did bring down building 7 on 9/11. He knows a hell of a lot more than he has ever said!

[RedRooster]

In his post, Senator Sanders uses a very particular word - plutocrats. Whatever you think you know about representative democracy and modern-day political life in America, do yourself and your fellow citizens a favor by learning exactly why Senator Sanders used that word and what it means:

In a plutocracy, power and opportunity are centralized within the affluent social class. The degree of economic inequality is high while the level of social mobility is low. This can apply to a multitude of government systems, as the key elements of plutocracy transcend and often occur concurrently with the features of those systems. The word plutocracy itself is derived from the ancient Greek root ploutos, meaning wealth and kratein, meaning to rule or to govern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy

[dadw5boys]

At the base of Freidman Economic Theory is to find the TRUE VALUE of all raw materials. This Mathematical and Scientific search for the true value has now DRIVEN MILLIONS INTO POVERTY just to prove one theory. Dr. Freidman NEVER wanted that to happen it was the Politico's we needed a DRIVER they could present to the public from some respected Scientist they could use as a vehicle for PRIVATE GAIN.
Ask yourself, what is the TRUE VALUE OF WATER? If you dyeing of thirst the price is extremely high. But the water would be given freely in that case by a civilized person.
Now take the water and privatize it. In Alanta,GA. or South Africa the water company decides on the bases of profit that gets water or water pressure to support the fire department. In South Africa million who had free water before it was rechanneled to power productions now have little or no water because they can't afford it.
Like Black Water's Private Army in the USA only those who can afford protection will have it eventually. More and more we see the affect of wealth on the laws of our country.
What is the TRUE VALUE OF EQUAL JUSTICE, thats what I want to know!
Rush BLIMPBURGER gets probation while Young Workers with the same back problems are doing 5 to 8 years in jail and they had fewer drugs than Rush Blimpburger did.
The INEQUALITIES in life was one of the things the FRIEDMAN THEORY was supposed to eliminate between people all over the world. See how Scientific Information in the wrong hands and applied by individuals with an agenda will always turn man against man.

[Misanthrope2]

Friedman was best known for reviving interest in the money supply as a determinant of the nominal value of output, that is, the quantity theory of money. Monetarism is the set of views associated with modern quantity theory. Its origins can be traced back to the 16th century School of Salamanca or even further but Friedman's contribution is largely responsible for its modern formulation. He co-authored, with Anna Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States (1963), which sought to examine the role of the money supply and economic activity in U.S. history. A striking conclusion of their research was one regarding the role of money supply fluctuations as contributing to economic fluctuations. Several regression studies with David Meiselman in the 1960s suggested the primacy of the money supply over investment and government spending in determining consumption and output. These challenged a prevailing but largely untested view on their relative importance. Friedman's empirical research and some theory supported the conclusion that the short-run effect of a change in the money supply was primarily on output but that the longer-run effect was primarily on the price level.
.

Friedman was the leading proponent of the monetarist school of economic thought. He maintained that there is a close and stable link between inflation and the money supply, mainly that the phenomenon of inflation is to be regulated by controlling the amount of money poured into the national economy by the Federal Reserve Bank; he rejected the use of fiscal policy as a tool of demand management; and he held that the government's role in the guidance of the economy should be severely restricted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_friedman#Economics

[kittycago]

If Americans were given the chance to buy from a made in America store they would be willing to pay a little more just to know the goods kept Americans working and they were free from lead paint,anti-freeze ,formaldehyde in our toys and foods.I think that answers what we think about free trade at the expense of jobs and safety .

[dadw5boys]

You mean an American Businesses would go to all the trouble to move production to another country and import contaminated food, toy, and cheap junk back into the USA just to made DOUBLE their PROFITS because the labor is so cheap and they have no REGULATIONS?
Wow, Who would have thought that Americans Businesses would have NO ETHICS when it comes to the products they sell?
It just can't be American Businesses have professed all over the world about their greatness and how they make the best products. This makes it sound like American Businesses have been taken over by Communist Businessmen.

[therealredstateblues]

The problems with the poor quality and unsafe chinese goods is exactly that - the desire to increase profits by cutting corners, cheap labor and avoidence of regulation.

we now see why we have the regulations in the first place because the market could not be trusted to self-police.

We have the collision of two worlds that is the primary cause - unfettered "cowboy" capitalism meets communist dictatorship - bringing out the very worst traits of both.

[davidkarlsson]

Sorry, but seriously, doesn't anyone see the logical flaws in Bernie's arguments? Poverty has increased in Mexico and the middle class has declined and this is all because of NAFTA? As an American Bernie thinks everything that happens in other countries happens because of what the U.S. does, foreign countries never actually do anything themselves. Doesn't anybody remember the 1995 peso crisis which had nothing to do with NAFTA? I lived there in 1996, people lost jobs, times were tough. NAFTA had nothing to do with it. Exports helped pull them out. And Mexicans were trying to get to the U.S. before NAFTA, this is hardly a new phenomenon. Trying to pin all Mexico's problems on the U.S. and NAFTA is plain old ethnocentrism. Sometimes other countries actually do have some influence on what happens in their own countries. And if it's so bad, how come Mexico hasn't pulled out of the agreement? Or instituted safeguard actions on agricultural imports? It's all perfectly legal in NAFTA, but no one can explain why it hasn't happened.

[worldtraveller]

Bravo!!

[3rdOption]

"... doesn't anyone see the logical flaws in Bernie's arguments?" - davidkarlsson

No, but thank"s for posting. This gives us the opportunity to clearly analyze the deceptive ploys used by supporters of exploitive trade.

"Poverty has increased in Mexico and the middle class has declined and this is all because of NAFTA?" - davidkarlsson

Exaggerative Straw Man. Neither Sanders, nor anyone else, has said that *all* economic troubles were due to NAFTA. But significant damage has been done by the collective impact of NAFTA and its offspring.

"¦Bernie thinks everything that happens in other countries happens because of what the U.S. Does" - davidkarlsson

Blatant Straw Man. Sanders didn"t say this, nor did he imply it.

"And Mexicans were trying to get to the U.S. before NAFTA, this is hardly a new phenomenon." - davidkarlsson

NAFTA champions Bill Clinton and Al Gore promised us that NAFTA would spell the end of illegal immigration since American and Mexican wages would "normalize" (Clinton's word). How'd that work out?

"Trying to pin all Mexico's problems on the U.S. and NAFTA is plain old ethnocentrism." - davidkarlsson

Trying to accuse progressives of racism, something they claim to loath? What an excellent Rove-ism. Except that NAFTA was a collusive effort between incredibly wealthy white corporate heads, and the incredibly wealthy Mexican families who dominate Mexico's oligarchy.

This is about simple greed and exploitation, not racism or "ethnocentrism".

"And if it's so bad, how come Mexico hasn't pulled out of the agreement?" - davidkarlsson

If Mexico and the United States were healthy, functioning democracies, we would have. But these decisions are currently made by those who have purchased both governments, people who are becoming profoundly wealthy by driving down standards of living in the U.S., and holding down standards of living in the countries they exploit for labor. These people have no intention of cutting short their gluttonous free-for-all.

It"s our job to stop them.

"It's all perfectly legal in NAFTA, but no one can explain why it hasn't happened." - davidkarlsson

I think I just did.

[lodipete]

Obviously Carlos Slim,Vincente Fox and the rest of the Mexican plutocracy are very happy with the arrangement. And unlike the Mestizos of Chiapas and the Mexican Socialists, it is they who call the shots. And yes indeed, they have been crossing the border since St.Reagan's "amnesty" and Frogman Kennedy's immigration bill of 1965. How come nobody seems to ask why? Poverty in Mexico? Been to Newark or Camden,NJ lately? Maybe we could use a few ethnocentric politicians for a change.

[davidkarlsson]

Don't you think that's just a wee paternalistic? You're basically saying Mexicans can't run their own affairs so we Americans have to save them from themselves.

[Doug Tico]

Costa Rica is not Mexico.
One of the biggest issues for us is that our constitution specifically prohibits arms trade of any sort including parts ans accessories.
The other issues are that our communications, energy and health care are Nationalized under the constitution.
Your " agreement" if implemented, God forbid, overrides that.
Should it pass expect a serious civil uprising in CR...
Utter peace here since 1949.... Yet another potential victim of what John Perkins refers to as The Corporatocracy.
The States of the US need to part ways with the US of Empyre and go their own way.
I refer to it as The Empyre since it is burning itself out and fast.
I left shortly after Moron stole his second term and will NEVER set foot in the US again until there are some DRASTIC changes.
I honestly expect another wave of " terrah" and the stooges declaring military law.
The morons continually voting against their own best interest ( republiscums) have killed the party.
Good luck to you and Mr. Sanders..
Mucho thanks for being one of the VERY few who speaks the truth.
Pura Vida

[mamacat]

Of course the factories in China can make goods cheaper than anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. Do they have environmental laws, social security, IRAs, 401ks, child labor laws, overtime laws, or any of the other things that workers in North America worked hard to get? As some here have said, it is not free trade, it is corporate greed run rampant, with the federal government complicit.

[SisterAnn]

Right mamacat. Workers fought hard to have social justice. Social fairness is being included with the push for 'free markets'. Instead of making life better for those overseas, they want to take what benefits we have away, so 'businesses can be more competitive overseas selling products.

Workers overseas do not have to pay as much for housing, health care and gas. They have that but their standard of living is different. Some use bicyles and mass transit. It cost a fortune to be poor in America.

This not is not capitalism. There is no real competition for the businesses, only for the worker. The competition for the worker is grossly unfair.

The Bush administration and their enablers have a two year old type of mentality, "It is my money'. It is radical and dangerous thinking, 'take what you can and don't worry about the social quality of life in any country'.