How to frame Free Trade

[MAlibdem]

Good economic policies are Democratic economic policies. Economics that work for all Americans to boost national wealth so that all get a taste of it are what economically we should be about. About lifting people up with growth and new opportunities.

In fact, free trade, pursued properly, can achieve these goals. The great debate in the period of globalization between the end of the Soviet Union and the present has been whether or not globalization was already happening, and if this was a good thing. The next debate will not be whether or not globalization is happening – it is – but how it can and should be used to promote global welfare. The debate between laissez-faire capitalism and the creation of a social safety net that occurred on the national level will be replicated at the global one. Already, with trade agreements linked to human rights and environmental agreements, there is a basis for the international enforcement of this safety net. Often, implementing this social safety net for moral or ethical reasons could harm the profit margins of many companies and countries. But if the net is applied to every country, no one will get comparative advantage of not participating and everyone will benefit from better standards and a cleaner earth.

I fell that it is reasonable to conclude that globalization is roughly analogous to an international shift of economic and social policy on the scale of the Industrial Revolution. Both of these changes were brought on by the desire for profits and economic growth. While the self-defeating capitalism of the Industrial Revolution was stopped by the Western social compact of a social safety net and social regulation of the economy, it remains to be seen whether a analogous process of regulation can or will happen on a global scale in the absence of a global government.

So let's make the Democratic Party the Party of internationalism. Of reaching out to other countries not just on military matters, but to create a free market, democratic world. In the process, we get a better environment, and better labor standards.


Now somebody frame this so that it can be sold to a voter. Thanks... (im working on it too).

[kodi]

1. one cant preach an internationalism resulting a loss of middle class jobs

we are doing that right now.

as to the remark of:

The debate between laissez-faire capitalism and the creation of a social safety net that occurred on the national level will be replicated at the global one. Already, with trade agreements linked to human rights and environmental agreements, there is a basis for the international enforcement of this safety net.

recent trade agrements from congress have stripped any such linkages of trade to human rights, unionization, and envirnomental issues. so we are moving away, rapidly, from that position as a people today.

any talk about using globalization to ensure wealfare is moot. globalization is not being driven by governments but by corporations who seek the lowest costs for plying their trade.

while i would agree that in the long run globalization has the potential to spread the wealth, i doubt it will happen unless government steps in to ensure profitability to corporations who abide by agreements linked to human rights and environmental issues.

rather i would prefer a US position on trade akin to using trade as a weapon for national survival. this is the antithesis of globalization, and one that focuses ensuring employment for workers in the US.

I would be hard put to attempt convince an unemployed american steel, or high tech worker globalization is better for them and their family than state sponsored and driven mercantilism.

of course, this is anathema to corporations who would rebell at any national economic policy and the potential loss of freedom to move capital.

but we see a form of intra-state mercantilism already in the US (itself a "free-trade" zone according to the commerce clause of the US constitution) and do not recognize it. states compete amongst themselves and give tax credits to seduce coroporations to re-locate. states fund schools and build infrastructure. all of these are attempts to bolster employment and the tax bases of their communities.

so, with the idea of linking trade to worker and human rights, and the environment, one has to appreciate that the aforementioned can not be the only factors negotiated in any such agreements. subsidies to the US steel industry for tax credits to buy new equipment is no different than a state subsidy to put a computer in front of every school child, because both affect economic vitality.

[mandyky]

2. Make it about Fair Trade

Every job that gets sent out of this country needs to send Union reps with them to help them get living wages and benefits. Any US company that closes plants here and moves to get cheap labor should have tariffs on anything they want to bring back into the US.