do we even *have* any free traders here any more?

[ulysses]

:shrug:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Yes

Go read the "which industries should we nationalize" thread ;)

[ulysses]

4. what, I'm chopped liver?

They never give that NAFTA love any more...:(

[Career Prole]

2. Sure...they haven't jailed any of 'em yet.

Oh! I'm sorry, ulysses...I thought you said free traitors. :eyes:

[ulysses]

5. bad Prole! bad!

;-)

[idlisambar]

3. Why, do you miss them?

;-)

[ulysses]

6. I do!

I have many questions!

[whistle]

7. Sure on Ebay...

[ulysses]

8. the new economy at work!

:D

[Bucky]

9. I'm not in favor of any unregulated trade, but...

I do believe we ought to aggressively prepare the American economy to compete in an increasingly globalized market. Obviously truly free trade will never work so long as there are such huge discrepancies between cost of living and labor markets in Latin America. If you think our workers are being screwed by Nafta, you should see what it does to small businesses in Mexico.

But increasing trade can carry benefits, greater specialization and niche market opportunities, the chance for small firms to grow if they can engage with overseas clients and vendors, and a general lowering of cultural barriers around the world. I'm sure no isolationist, and I think that if properly managed with protections built in for labor and environmental regulations, lowering trade barriers is a good thing.

Now don't respond to this thread until I get my asbestos suit on.

[ulysses]

10. no asbestos necessary.

I'm in favor of increasing trade. Trade is good. You recognize the need for protections.

[lvx35]

11. CAFTA, NAFTA, WTO not about free trade.

I'm not against it in principle, but I don't believe "trade" should minimalize the power of other groups, which is what these "trade" agreements are all about.

[idlisambar]

12. that means you are against free trade

decreasing the relative power of local governments vs. these enforcement mechanisms is a necessary effect of free trade.

[lvx35]

13. No, they don't need to be mutually exclusive.

Local environmental agreements that block a given product from being sold aren't against free trade. You can block these products while allowing a full and robust market.

[idlisambar]

15. free trade != "full and robust market"

free trade == unregulated trade

free trade, by this definition, precludes local environmental regulation that interferes with commerce. Another term is needed for where you stand -- "fair trade" is probably closer.

[lvx35]

36. free != unregulated.

Look at life under the US constitution. Fundamentally free, but also regulated. The two can coexist.

On the same note, fair trade is a good term, I support that too.

[rman]

49. The terms "free" and "fair" don't really mean anything,

when used by con-men as a name for one of their scams.

The scam known as "Free Trade" could just as well be called "Fair Trade", and it would still come down to the same thing.

I think we should move beyond mere names and come up with some short, accurate descriptions, both of what current "Free Trade" actually is, and what our idea of "Fair Trade" actually is.

[lvx35]

55. I fully agree.

I was reading a book on the fall of the Soviet Union, which was talking about how when Gorbechev was trying to propose reforms to the people, he had no words to do it, because words like "democracy" and "open" and "free" had all become descriptors for the Soviet state. Its a little like the same thing here I think! Its a big problem.

[fhqwhgads]

14. i don't know...

...i guess it depends on how you define a free trader. i think i fall into the paul krugman school of economic thought.

[applegrove]

16. I'm here. Even some left in Canada agrees that you have to open markets

to the poor of the world.

[ulysses]

17. thanks.

Question - are current agreements the only way to have open markets?

[applegrove]

19. No. We could make agreements that promote a high percentage

of government health care across the world. We could promote the idea that some emerging economies may need to start out with monopolies in say the Oil Industry - just to get the capital situation working and fair to begin with.

We can put whatever norms we want to in trade agreements. They don't have to just favor Pharmaceuticals.

But trade worldwide has to happen. As we loose some jobs and people start their own businesses and face lower wages - our civil goods will come from afar and our food may come down in price. So - we could maintain the same standard of living even with lower wages.

And people in poor countries will have a chance to participate and develop their own industries.

[rman]

18. To bad the reverse is happening;

The poor have to open their markets to the rich nations, so that most of the wealth flows out of the poor nations to the large corporations of the rich nations. But i assume you knew that already.

[applegrove]

20. No - that was the 20th Century. When US had no competition from

the less developed nations, the soviet block, and Europe recovering after the war. The USA then just took the resources and dominated aid & industry & natural resources.

This type of trade today - we are talking about industry & markets that will see money go to emerging middle class and farmers. We have to fight against neocon tendencies. That part of it is bad.

[Nederland]

21. Why of course

:)

[ulysses]

22. dude!

Wondered where you were. Care to help me out with a few questions? :hi:

[ulysses]

23. still there, Nederland?

[Nederland]

24. Yup (nt)

[ulysses]

25. cool. to begin with,

how do you justify the protections for US pharmaceuticals in CAFTA that, essentially, deny affordable drugs to Central American HIV/AIDS patients?

[Nederland]

26. I wouldn't

...in theory.

In reality I guess I'm pragmatic enough to realize that nothing gets done in politics without a little pork grease to get things going. The important thing is that CAFTA moves toward freer markets, and that's a good thing. The more trade barriers we knock down, the harder it will be to justify the ones that remain.

[ulysses]

27. but you just did.

The important thing is that CAFTA moves toward freer markets, and that's a good thing.

No matter what other issues might stand in the way?

[ulysses]

28. Nederland?

[Nederland]

30. Sorry

My wife is out and I'm splitting my time between watching the kid, looking at Ohio election results, and baking cookies.

Not no matter what, it would depend on the entire bill I guess. I would probably tolerate a few give aways just to get something through, and its tough to say how many of those it would take to make me write the whole thing off. To be honest, I'm not familiar with all the details of CAFTA, and I'm sure if I were many things would make me sick.

Making sausage and all that you know.

[ulysses]

32. fair enough - let me help you out.

CAFTA, as passed, includes provisions that crack down on the sale of generic HIV/AIDS drugs in member countries. Sick folks down there are currently getting lifesaving medications through charitable organizations that buy the generics at greatly reduced rates than what they'd have to pay for the santioned name brands and then distribute them for little or no payment to those who are sick.

CAFTA will put these efforts out of business.

Is it worth it?

Say hi to your daughter for me.

[Nederland]

34. Tough call

Perhaps Democrats could compensate by putting together enough votes for an aid package that would help people in the region that have HIV? Given that its such a small region, I don't think it would be too expensive...

[ulysses]

35. that'd be very nice of them to do that.

Since such an effort isn't likely to pass a Republican Congress, though, even were the Dems to consider it, is CAFTA still worth it? That's sort of what I'm after - I want to know what price is acceptable for hemispheric free trade.

[Nederland]

52. What Price?

That's a hard question to answer. What price would you pay for Universal Health care? Would you put up with a 1 billion dollar give away to the pharmaceutical industry? 2 billion? 10 billion? I think its a hard thing to quantify...

[ulysses]

53. well, I had more in mind than strict monetary costs

when I asked about worth, but yeah, I could see buying off the phramaceutical industry for a billion or two if it gave us real universal health care. I wouldn't sacrifice lives for it, though.

[ulysses]

56. back up there.

:kick:

[JanMichael]

29. There are some here that seem to think that Utopian "Fair Trade" is....

...a "Good Thing".

But not many:-)

[sandnsea]

37. What's bad about honest trade?

I buy something you have to sell, you buy coffee imported from a green farmer in Central America, he buys my business services. If the corporations were out of it, what would be wrong with that?

[rman]

39. What's bad about it is that it's not honest

The trade deals we are seeing now are "free" and "honest" in name only.

[ulysses]

40. actual free trade isn't a bad thing.

I use "free traders" here to refer to those who support NAFTA and CAFTA.

[kodi]

31. why should there? american industry was built behind high tariff walls

the US has never been for free trade, that's because trade has always danced to the government's tune. now its ass-backwards and free-trade pirates control the government.

anyone who talks about how free trade is best for america has chosen profits over their country.

[greendog]

33. The free traders will return for the '08 primaries...

When the "fancy haircut" wing of the Democratic produces a slew of telegenic candidates, and those candidates receive abundant funding from you know where, consultants will be hired and fresh talking points will be produced.

Once those talking points are written you won't have trouble finding them at DU.

[Wabbajack]

38. Me

between nations that both have worker's rights and respect for the enviroment. So not for us.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. I'm for Free Trade*

*Provided that the agreement protects the environment and worker rights and safety. And that child and prison labor not be used. And that job retraining programs and serious R&D money is put up by the private sector. And that corporations who have ex-patriated offshore be required to pay taxes.

Sure. I'm for Free Trade.

[ulysses]

42. ah, but see, that's "protectionism".

:sarcasm:

[mattclearing]

43. I believe in free trade.

What of it?

:D

[ulysses]

44. just curious - until last night

I couldn't get any CAFTA fans to answer questions about the pharmaceutical protections in the treaty. I posted a couple to Nederland above - you're welcome to have at if you'd like.

[mattclearing]

50. I'll pass on that.

I'm no CAFTA backer, and haven't done my homework on the legislation. I'm sure it's loaded with objectionable garbage just like everything else our government produces and signs onto lately. The mere label "free trade" does not a free trade agreement make.

[robcon]

45. I strongly believe in free trade.

It is the best method for improving economic conditions thoughout the world.

[ulysses]

46. build it and they'll eventually come, I guess.

Care to take a stab at this? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1977819&mesg_id=1978440

[mattclearing]

51. It sounds like protectionism dressed up as "free trade."

I believe in free trade in principle, which is far cry from what our government tries to pass off as free trade.

All trade enriches the already wealthy, so people who think "oh, it helps corporations, it's bad," aren't really seeing the whole picture.

I think that overall, free trade helps to raise wages in weak economies and provides the basis for industry in undeveloped countries.

It's a slow process, and one that undoubtedly is painful and has nasty side effects. I do believe it is better than protectionism, though, because overall, it works to share the wealth of nations such as the United States with the third world, slowing growing their economies into something more first-world like.

Labor standards would be nice, but we can't always expect another country to take care of their workers like we do. Industry requires support systems to be developed for its workers, both private and governmental. That takes time.

Overall, I think it's a good thing for the world in the long run.

[rman]

48. Unless it's a scam that is only *called* "Free Trade",

then it only improves economic conditions of the rich.

[HamdenRice]

47. I'm for free trade ...

although not the way it has been implemented under Clinton or shrub. One of the main reasons is that developing countries need access to our markets in order to become self-sustaining.

Unfortunately, I am also on the way out of the house to work and can't elaborate right now -- maybe later.

[aspberger]

54. How can there ever be "free trade" as long as

other countries subsidize their health care costs? Our companies have the burden of paying for health care or just letting their employees take their chances with cancer or a heart attack.

This issue needs to be addressed out of fairness for both our workers and companies; as well as, our ability to compete with the world on a level playing field.

[JHBowden]

57. I'm a free trader.

My attitude toward globalization has changed over the last few years for the better. I'm still not for giving corporations special favors and free handouts, though.