What is especially troublesome is both Dems and Republicans have gone for the open borders approach. There is a march to the ideology of free trade without regard to where the costs are imposed. Those that brought in the trade pacts were well paid by the business interests who knew darn well where the benefits would flow. The middle class can be squeezed for just so long. The reaction when it comes, and it will surely come, is likely be seen as strange or disproportionate and will be ridiculed by the intelligentsia. But like the Luddites, the people will fight back with any tools they have or know about. arthur
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Fri 12/8/2006 2:43 AM To: Keith Hudson Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected]; Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [Futurework] Democrats and "Free" Trade Yes, the problem with the free trade approach in the N Am context has been that while the benefits of free trade have been evident (massive capital gains to the rich, and low cost goods for everyone else) the costs have been disproportionately absorbed by specific individuals, groups and communities. The promised transitional programs (a la NAFTA and other) both in Canada and the US have either been non-existent or ill-designed and ineffective... What do you do? Well more or less total abandonment isn't a particularly humane or productive approach which has been the norm particularly in the US--an implied invocation of the hidden hand (read giving the finger... Figuring out some way through personal tax benefits, direct financial transfers, realistic and employment linked training programs, compensation programs from firms in flight etc.etc. are not bad places to start in sharing the benefits along with costs. Invoking the Soviet experience in this context is of course, a particular variant of Godwin's Law... and is beneath comment... MG > I was not writing of "economists' time" but of the time it takes to offer > full educational opportunities to the children of any unfortunate workers > who are displaced by more efficient industries or services elsewhere in > order for the children to have a better chance of avoiding the same state > as their parents. > > And it is to be remembered that more workers are displaced by efficiency > in > competitive industries and services at home rather than abroad. So what do > you do about that? If you try to protect this situation you are in danger > of doing what the USSR did for 70 years -- which has now bequeathed Russia > with an increasingly impoverished, demoralised and steeply declining > population with galloping Aids, hard drug addiction, TB and alcoholism. > > KH > > At 22:41 07/12/2006 -0800, you wrote: > >>One among many problems with the neo-liberal "open markets raises all >>boats" theory is that while jobs are lost in real time, standards of >>living are increased in "economists'" time which could be short term but >>is usually medium or long term (or never term given that there are always >>exogenous factors that intervene that don't quite fit into the >> economists' >>supply curves... >> >>And of course as Keynes most famously said "in the long run... >> >>MG >> >> > Arthur, >> > >> > If the Democrats in America can't decide on free trade or otherwise, >> then >> > tough luck on them, because customers will decide for them sooner or >> later >> > by buying cheaper goods made abroad and avoiding costlier home-made >> goods. >> > >> > If it's sooner, then the out-of-work factory (and some service) >> workers >> > will concentrate government's mind on reforming the education of its >> > children. If it's later, then the factories (and some other services) >> will >> > be forever inefficient compared with those in other countries and the >> > general standard of living will go down. And then the factory (etc) >> > workers >> > will be out of work a litte later anyway. The general standard of >> living >> > could remain down forever from then onwards when one considers the >> rate of >> > technological change and the new skills required.) >> > >> > If a country wants to engage then its government should ensure the >> best >> > possible education for its children, outlaw protective practices in >> all >> > trades and professions (and publicise all past formal credentialising >> > examinations). In this way, everybody will have as interesting jobs as >> > they >> > are capable of and shorter working weeks and more leisure time will >> > gradually become the norm. >> > >> > Keith Hudson >> > >> > At 20:40 07/12/2006 -0500, you wrote: >> > >> >>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >> >>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; >> >>boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C71A6A.19761E86"; >> >> x-avg-checked=avg-ok-4B151299 >> >> >> >>dir=ltr> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>---------- >> >>From: Strategic Forecasting, Inc. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>Sent: Thu 12/7/2006 7:28 PM >> >>To: Subject: Stratfor Public Policy Intelligence Report >> >> >> >>468e12.jpg snip, snip....
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
