Thread: Republicans too!

CNBC was talking about a Wall Street Journal article that said half of Republicans polled now see the so callled "Free trade agreements" as being bad for America. Most Democrats already do!

It isn't about free trade but whether it is fair trade. Pay an American $20 an hour plus benefits or take the job to Honduras and pay a buck an hour.

People are catching on I think to all this free trade garbage.

Hi there manjar. Yes, indeed I believe you're correct.
(the above from a former Democrat, now happily Independent).

As a related and side comment... It seems as though the perceptual 'axes' by which [so-called] "free trade" is viewed has begin to shift significantly in recent years. Previously, it probably would have been possible to predict pro-big business affection based on location within the political spectrum (eg. left ("Democrat") vs. right ("Republican") - yes, a very gross generalization). However, now, I believe most Americans (left or right), view it as a matter of vertical stratification - the 'elites' vs. the average or working people. So that the entire view has been transformed onto a new set of imaginary or inverted axes somehow. (Or, stated another way, as I like to point out, the sum total of donations by large corporations to Democrats in a typical year, is almost the same as goes to Republicans).

Examples: The WSJ (Yes, the Wall Street Journal!) Poll which indicates those folks which have historically been strong supporters of business/property rights, and big business are now reaching a consensus that trade without conditions is a bad thing. And that it is bad not only for those newly-displaced people in affected industries, but also, for the newly-enslaved workers which are the targets for exploitation.

I had heard another internationally-commissioned poll mentioned on NPR in the last month or so, and it too, indicated that most of those polled in Europe ALSO believe that unmitigated "free trade" was viewed negatively by a majority of the respondents (sorry, don't have the link handy at the moment).

Third, while the proponents always couch their reasons in pursuing the cheapest labor force in terms we've all heard way too many times: "it's necessary to remain competitive", "this will enable us to innovate our product line", <insert your rationale du jour here>, etc....
What is conveniently omitted is that for many - maybe most - industries, the cost of human input to actually "make" a product is small to begin with (and, as the proponents of the 'race to the bottom mentality' would wish upon ALL the world's peoples, it is decreasing at a faster rate too).

In a rather well-known case, Charles Kernaghan rightly pointed out, that by outsourcing/off-shoring textile production, that not only did the end retail cost of the good being produced change very little, if at all, the added profits went SOLELY into greater profits of the manufacturer (with requisite post-facto quotes here). Excerpt from Nader web site:

"Charles Kernaghan, director of the NLC, has calculated that Salvadoran women are paid 74¢ for each $198 Liz Claiborne jacket they sew. That means their wages are less than one half of 1 percent of the retail price that American consumers pay for the jacket.

In the United States, the labor cost to sew a garment typically is 10 percent of the retail price. By moving production abroad, Kernaghan says, "the companies have almost wiped out the cost involved in sewing a garment."

from:
http://www.nader.org/template.php?/arch ... ights.html

Anybody remember the words the late Pope John Paul II uttered back around 1998/1999? He warned of 'savage capitalism'. I believe the Bible has a very appropriate axiom which fits in this context as well (hint: contains references to rich men, camels, the eye of a needle, etc...)

Free trade was, is, being sold to us as a panacea that will solve all our ills. I remember the NAFTA debates of the 1990s (e.g, Perot's debate with Gore on CNN when Gore gave a pic of Smoot-Hawley to Perot), how this was supposed to stop illegal immigration etc. Well, we see the results. Hope your one of the lucky ones who has a defined benefit pension.

BTW Phred, I listened to NPR for years but stopped awhile ago due to their incredible slant and bias.

______________

Call the Senate: NO AgJOBS Amnesty !

Populist - yeah, you're definitely correct about that. I still listen as to catch all their nonsense so I can write them nasty letters. I feel like I'm getting my money back after having contributed for quite a few years in the past. Yes, I'm a 'bad person' motivated in this case primarily out of vengeance.

Free Trade, I hate the term because it is never free, Trade is fine if there
is trade in both directions but in our case it appears to be all incoming.

Corporate America who seems to control our government cares not for
America or its middle class as we continue to lose manufacturing jobs,
import poor uneducated workers we will in effect become like other third
world countries.

Greed or stupidity take your pick either way the America middle class
takes the hit.

Originally Posted by manjar

CNBC was talking about a Wall Street Journal article that said half of Republicans polled now see the so callled "Free trade agreements" as being bad for America. Most Democrats already do!

It isn't about free trade but whether it is fair trade. Pay an American $20 an hour plus benefits or take the job to Honduras and pay a buck an hour.

People are catching on I think to all this free trade garbage.

This is one of the issues that the Dems are better on than the Reps......IMO most Rep VOTERS are social conservative "America First" types. I think most do not understand trade issues, nor their party's official position on the matter. I think they would be floored by what the Republican party has been actively promoting for America for years. I know I was when I found out. The rest comprise of people who understand, but because they agree with so much of the Rep Party's positions on social issues, they shrug and go along with it -- feeling they have to becuase that is what it takes to be a "conservative." And then there are the others (the minority of Rep voters) who really believe in unregulated trade, greed, selfishness, and a blind obsession with unregulated capitalism.

"Pat Buchanan is not a conservative.......He's a populist."

--Rush Limbaugh

If the dems were so concerned, why haven't they done something about it? With that many rep's, getting something through would be easy.........and from the sounds of it, veto-proof. Sounds like a con job.

Originally Posted by CitizenJustice

If the dems were so concerned, why haven't they done something about it? With that many rep's, getting something through would be easy.........and from the sounds of it, veto-proof. Sounds like a con job.

The Democrats pay lip service to being against this phony "free trade", which is actually highly managed trade, to benefit multi-national corporations.

There were more Dems who voted against NAFTA and CAFTA than Republicans, but the Democrats in the House and Senate, and the Democrat base as a whole, gave Clinton a pass on ram-rodding NAFTA through.

Democrats seem to be the most adamantly opposed to "free trade", when Republicans are in control and pushing it through, rather than their own.

As Phred pointed out, it mainly has to do with Dems being increasingly bought out by corporate lobbies......Yet, no matter how you slice it, no matter how much you dislike the Dems, they are better on this issue. NAFTA created much the same division within the Dems as immigration is within the Reps today. Unfortunately, administrations from both parties go against their base where globalism is concerned. "Free" trade is mostly a conservative ideal -- more specifically, it is a neoconservative ideal......as conservatives have a long history of trade restriction up until the rise of neoconservatism.

In terms of rhetoric, the Democrats are better on regional government schemes, posing as free trade. As Phred and you both pointed out, the Dems are increasingly being bought out by the same entities that are buying out the GOP. NAFTA was a huge step in the direction of world government, posing as a trade deal. IMHO, if the Dems were better on this issue, they would have excoriated Clinton, for pushing it through with Gingrich.

I don't dislike the Dems more than the Republicans, because I know what the Dems are. I used to expect more from the Republicans, because I used to be one.

There is no doubt that the neocon crowd are enthusiastic boosters of this misnamed "free trade".