[lakeweb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', 'I') know this one will be controversial so I won't get too fired up if it goes down in flames. Why would I say free trade saves the day? Right now a huge qamount of potential economic activity is being stifled by tarrifs. Mayn third world countrie shave agricutlural potential and an eager work force but protectison on the agricultural industries of developed nation means there is little market for thier crops. In order to fund the transition to alternative fueslwe need growth in the global economy not recession. So if we were smart about it we could open the flood gates a bit and work out some ingeinius trade policies that stimulate smart growth and since the markets for oil is so tight this added pressure would push prices higher in the near term forcing alternative energy development by those nations wanting to take full advantage of trade opportunities. The US would have to be prepared to subsidize the transition with just the right amout of aid for farmers. These sorts of things do need to be moderated with solid policies because you don't want to see a collapse of agriculture in the developed world and a rise of forced labor agriculture in the developing one. But overall the concept of trade liberalization say nothing more thatn let those who are best suited to the ethical production of a good take the market share no matter where in the world they live.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'W')hat I've seen is that the 'system' is not the answer. You have eluded to the moral aspect of the 'system'. But from what I've seen it is the crux. Free trade has often resulted in the exploitation of less developed countries for their cheep labor.

[lakeweb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'W')hat I've seen is that the 'system' is not the answer. You have eluded to the moral aspect of the 'system'. But from what I've seen it is the crux. Free trade has often resulted in the exploitation of less developed countries for their cheep labor.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'S')o, tell me, what are the masses of Indonesia are 'getting'?

Best, Dan.

[nero]

The problem with globalization isn't trade liberalization itself. I agree with the jaws that trade itself isn't a bad thing. The real problem with globalization and the current economic consensus is the way it tends to cater to the needs of the corporations and the wealthy and ignore the worker's rights, the environmental consequences or social equity for the poor.

Yes the two people involved in the trade both will benefit from the deal but one party can still feal agrieved if he or she recognizes that the other party receives the vast majority of the benefits of the deal.

[lakeweb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'S')o, tell me, what are the masses of Indonesia are 'getting'?

Best, Dan.

[DigitalCubano]

Indeed, this is precisely the type of thinking that India adopted since the beginning of the globalization movement and it's a major fact that has led to their recent economic success. They recognized that they had no leverage in negotiating the rules of trade with the likes of more powerful players like the US and the EU. However, they also realized that some of the increased economic activity could be channeled to education and healthcare, which could then increase the productivity of their workforce. The hope was to attract a greater amount of investment in the Indian economy which would help generate more leverage for subsequent trade agreements. I think that this strategy has worked very well for them.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')nd once again, if the system is allowed to be used as a 'tool' this exploitation does not help the 'people'.

International Trade Agreements

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hough supporters claim that trade agreements bring sustainable development and economic integration, this is not the case. Rich countries maintain protections of their own exports, while their competitors in poor countries agree to open their markets. Beneficial norms, such as human rights or environmental standards, are set aside. This leads to a "race to the bottom," in which the only priority is cost effective production, at the expense of workers, resources, and sustainability.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lakeweb', 'A')nd once again, if the system is allowed to be used as a 'tool' this exploitation does not help the 'people'.

International Trade Agreements

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hough supporters claim that trade agreements bring sustainable development and economic integration, this is not the case. Rich countries maintain protections of their own exports, while their competitors in poor countries agree to open their markets. Beneficial norms, such as human rights or environmental standards, are set aside. This leads to a "race to the bottom," in which the only priority is cost effective production, at the expense of workers, resources, and sustainability.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coyote', 'J')aws, I think you may be making an unfounded assumption that people employed by global corporations are necessarily getting paid a greater wage than they would earn otherwise. Unless you've got a good source for that statement, I would definitely question it.

[fathead]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')am not making an unfounded assumption, I am stating a fundamentally correct assumption. Unless they're slaves, if these people could earn more than they do working for corporate outsourcers, they would do it! If it was better for them to stay in their village, they would stay.

[nero]

jaws,

The anti-globalization movement recognizes that the sweatshop worker is better off in the factory than starving in the gutter. I think everyone recognizes that. Their argument is that their previous way of living was destroyed by the opening of the economy and in fact they had been better off in the closed economy. For instance, they might have had their own small shop manufacturing for the local market. But when the borders opened they couldn't compete and so were bankrupted.

I think this is a valid point. There are alot of losers when a country opens up to foreign competition. If in the end the opening of the economy makes more losers than winners it is in my opinion a bad thing. Making the rich richer while driving others into poverty might look good when looking at the economic statistics but it makes lousy public policy.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fathead', 'A')s has been the case in Indonesia, the Phillipines, South Korea, Mexico and India, agricultural workers are often dispossesed of their land in order to make way for industrialised production controlled by transnational firms (or the state funded infrastructure to support/attract their operations). Now lacking their previous means of production, and often with little monetary wealth to aid in relocation, these people will often be left with the choice of starvation or working for whatever wages the new employers are offering. The end result of this, and has been demonstrated in many cases, is that whilst these people may start receiving a monetary wage that moves them above the US $2/day poverty line, and boosts the monetary GNP of an economy, it has the effect of reducing the bundle of goods which individuals and communities are able to access.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'j')aws,

The anti-globalization movement recognizes that the sweatshop worker is better off in the factory than starving in the gutter. I think everyone recognizes that. Their argument is that their previous way of living was destroyed by the opening of the economy and in fact they had been better off in the closed economy. For instance, they might have had their own small shop manufacturing for the local market. But when the borders opened they couldn't compete and so were bankrupted.

I think this is a valid point. There are alot of losers when a country opens up to foreign competition. If in the end the opening of the economy makes more losers than winners it is in my opinion a bad thing. Making the rich richer while driving others into poverty might look good when looking at the economic statistics but it makes lousy public policy.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is the same old million-times refuted argument for protectionism. The reality is that the one guy who made living with his protected workshop was preventing hundreds of others from improving their own living by trading with foreigners. Am I sorry that he had to close shop? Absolutely not. He enjoyed an unfair priviledge to the detriment of his fellow countrymen.

[jaws]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'Q')uite often, it isn't some small priveledged minority that is hurt but large segments of society, like the corn farmers in Mexico, or factory workers in the USA. Globalization has not helped us close the divide between the rich and the poor in fact the gap has widened in the past 20 years.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'T')he fast-paced transformation of Chinese and Indian society pretty much demolishes this claim. If Latin America is a socio-political catastrophe, they have only themselves to blame for it.

[CARVER]

I think that we don't have the proper regulations and rights in place yet to get the desired effect from trade liberalization. The current situation does not satisfy the preconditions required to let free trade be successful. We are still dealing with externalities. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')n externality occurs in economics when a decision (for example, to pollute the atmosphere) causes costs or benefits to stakeholders other than the person making the decision. In other words, the decision-maker does not bear all of the costs or reap all of the gains from his action. As a result, in a competitive market too much or too little of the good will be consumed from the point of view of society. If the world around the person making the decision benefits more than he does (education, safety), then the good will be underconsumed by individual decision makers; if the costs to the world exceed the costs to the individual making the choice (pollution, crime) then the good will be overconsumed from society's point of view.

[coyote]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'U')nless they're slaves, if these people could earn more than they do working for corporate outsourcers, they would do it! If it was better for them to stay in their village, they would stay. But instead they flock to the cities looking for manufacturing jobs because it improves their lives...

I get that you people don't like to be reminded that poverty exists and we take advantage of that...