Lydia Leftcoast
03-11-2009, 03:30 PM
Here's the original typical corporatist blather article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/opinion/11wed1.html
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 with me. The rest were either hardcore corporatists or sophomore economics students, I would guess.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/opinion/11wed1.html
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 with me. The rest were either hardcore corporatists or sophomore economics students, I would guess.