Well said, Arthur. There lurk in my mind the echos of arguments made back in the 60s and 70s that "protectionism can't work" and would only serve to isolate one economy from another, thus impeding rationalization of a (coming) global economy.
But clearly the development of a beneficial global economy was hijacked by individuals intent on building up their own wealth as much as possible. So, in retrospect, it seems clear that if protectionism was to be abandoned it would have to have been with protections in place against the unfettered exercise of individual greed. Of course, the very people who were formulating the arguments against protectionism were also sotto voce endorsing the exercise of that greed under the doctrine of free markets and capitalist freedom. I talked with Soros once. He deplored the system that allowed him to make a killing through opportunistic currency trading that amounted to artificial attacks on vulnerable currencies and people. And then he said that a regulatory regime was essential if the harm caused by these attacks was to be stopped. And then he further added that until such a regime were was put in place, which would apply to him as well as everyone else who was engaged in these practices, he would have to continue to exercise his trading practices. I do believe that there was a part of him that regretted this situation, though not enough to voluntarily and alone stop the practice. Enough though to prompt him to engage in philanthropic initiatives such as the Open Society. Nor should we ignore the complicity of all who have participated in the economic structures created by the globalization process and its reduction of protectionist practices. And this would include worker groups that for years protected by protectionist and cultural walls allowed themselves to slip into slip-shod manufacturing processes, which helped create a consumer rebellion and demand for better made imports (of course I am thinking of the US automotive industry). Cheers, Lawry On Jul 13, 2010, at 10:10 AM, Arthur Cordell wrote: > I am a protectionist. I try to protect my family, my community, my city, > etc. I am sure that you are too. I am willing to trade off economic gains > for security and a range of social and esthetic reasons. I support building > codes. And heritage designations. So why is "protectionist" such a bad > word? > > We have embarked on a program of short term gain for long term pain. Prices > are lower on almost all products. Yes. Produced by prison labour, or child > labour, or non-union labour, and in conditions where health and safety laws > are not like ours, environmental laws , etc. This really isn't trade with > China. It is buying low cost products from China and them taking our IOUs. > At some point this has got to come to an end. At the end we will have gone > beyond hollowing out our mfg sector. We have lost design capability in many > areas. We are buying products that we don't fully understand how they are > made. Our craftsman have been retired and there is no one around to take > their place since there are no jobs. I am overstating the case but this is > what trading with super low cost countries leads to. > > I agree to trade. Trade with countries that have somewhat similar laws and > protections. > > We have really been following Lenin's dictum: "A capitalist will sell you > the rope you later use to hang him with". > > I hate to echo so much of what has been said by others but it really seems > that the elites have sold out the working class. It gets worse. Tune into > late night radio and the hustlers are trying to get the newly impoverished > to rush out and buy gold. Get it before ....just get it. Looks like a new > bubble. So walking away from homes and jobs, take a try on the casino of > gold. > > We should be governing for the long term good of our citizens, not for the > short term bottom line of corporations. Sometimes they coincide, this time > they are diverging, strongly. > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:43 PM > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Tremble, Banks, Tremble > > Interesting. Do you believe that there should be no NAFTA or the other > International Agreements that have caused the loss of jobs to go overseas? > How would you have handled it? Like the Japanese farmers? Our farmers > have the same problems even with the subsidies and how about the subsidizing > of energy companies for the status quo. What are your suggestions? > > REH > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:05 PM > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Tremble, Banks, Tremble > > Google Clinton Wal-Mart China and you will see just what nice folks the > Clinton's are. > > Hillary on the Board of Walmart while "first lady" in Arkansas. Pres > Clinton touting the promise of opening trade with China, meanwhile Walmart > is one of the first to get product from China. Walmart in a profit squeeze > was desperate to get goods at lower cost and so China became the place to > get low cost product. And what of American workers? Hmm. > > No not a mensch at all. Slick willie was a name that was well earned. > Smart. But then again shysters are often smart. > > Arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Harrell > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:34 PM > To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' > Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Tremble, Banks, Tremble > > Agreed but if someone removes the struts from a bridge to allow more traffic > and puts in place the building of larger struts to accommodate the traffic > and the next administration refuses to do the work and sells the materials > off for the upper classes nine houses in nine countries and naked ladies be > served at parties on the backs of European waiters, then the blame for the > original removal is specious. > > Arthur. Clinton had a whole plan to work through the problems of NAFTA and > the market but Busy trashed the plans and went for the cheap thrill. I > would trust Clinton again with the economy because although he's an old > hound when it comes to sex, otherwise he's a "mensch". The others launch > armies as orgasms and their economics is faux. Fake leather from China. > > REH > > PS. Thanks Mike for the article. This Galbraith is turning out to be an > interesting one. > > ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
