Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Michael Perelman Roger Milliken thinks that he will lose a *lot* of money if the quotas on African textile imports into the United States are removed. Are you saying that he is a bad judge of his own interests, and that he will actually profit *more* if Africans export more textiles to America? Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Much of the poverty of Africa has to do with the devastation imposed by Europe and North America. Yes, they have been plauged by corrupt leaders also, but that was probably also fostered by the same powers. Now, the idea is to intergrate more closely into the global economy with a minimum of local control. Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. Brad De Long wrote: Since capital is so much more mobile than labor, the free movement of capital will give far more advantages to the employers then the employees. Part of the story is also the opening up of agriculture to free trade so that people will be swept off the land and forced into low-wage jobs which will not create much opportunity. We saw this in Mexico. Michael Perelman Roger Milliken thinks that he will lose a *lot* of money if the quotas on African textile imports into the United States are removed. Are you saying that he is a bad judge of his own interests, and that he will actually profit *more* if Africans export more textiles to America? Brad DeLong -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
At 09:09 AM 5/8/00 -0700, you wrote: Once again, American workers at the lower rungs of the pay scale are being asked to sacrifice their jobs and wages on the altar of "free trade," so that the poorer countries of the world might pursue an economic development strategy that offers little hope for the vast majority of their own populations. Over the last 25 years, we have lost more than a million jobs in textiles and apparel... Name: Mark Weisbrot Why this extraordinary desire to keep Africa from exporting textiles to the U.S.--to keep Africa poor and keep Roger Milliken rich? if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Michael P writes: Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. it's important to avoid Brad's style of argument here, which seems similar to guilt-by-association: If Roger Milliken (boo, hiss) is for something, it _must be_ bad. That's like saying that just because Farrakan or the UC-Berkeley economics department is for something, it must be wrong. Jim Devine BULLSHIT!!! Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not (African) labor but (American) capital. I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. No guilt-by-association.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
Michael P writes: Roger M. will do ok either way. Just because it is in his interest to oppose such arrangements does not make the opposition irrational. I wrote: it's important to avoid Brad's style of argument here, which seems similar to guilt-by-association: If Roger Milliken (boo, hiss) is for something, it _must be_ bad. That's like saying that just because Farrakan or the UC-Berkeley economics department is for something, it must be wrong. Brad writes: BULLSHIT!!! wow. Michael Perelman said that he was opposed to AGOA because capital was internationally mobile--hence the beneficiaries from AGOA are not (African) labor but (American) capital. That makes sense, in that as soon as the African laborers start getting significant wage-gains, capital will move on to greener pastures. Of course, fixed capital isn't totally mobile, so in the meantime, the interested capitalists would support explicitly anti-labor governments that repress unions and suppress wages. As part of this, they would use the threat of capital mobility to avoid need to actually move capital (as they do in the US). In addition, the mobility of capital would speed up the commercialization of agriculture, which would imply an amply supply of labor to the cities, keeping wages down. I pointed out that Roger Milliken--American textile capital--thinks that AGOA is not in his material interest, suggesting that (as I believe) the beneficiaries from AGOA will be (among others) African labor. No guilt-by-association. Wait a sec! the logic of this is that RM is against AGOA, then it _must_ be good for others. Suppose that he's against flying the Confederate flag on the S. Carolina statehouse. In that case, would it be good for others to fly it? I don't know about his position on that issue, so turn to a different one: I am sure that RM is against the "expropriation of the expropriators" (which includes capitalists such as himself). Does that mean that it's good for others to expropriate the capitalists' assets? I'd say so (if it's done in the right way), but I doubt that you say so. Thus, using RM's position to justify your favoring of free trade _is_ akin to a guilt-by-association argument. (Because a special interest like RM is against AGOA, it must go against the public interest, however defined.) Instead of using his opposition to AGOA as part of your argument in favor of that act, you should argue that the act is good in itself. BTW, I myself have a bias in favor of free trade. But unlike orthodox economists, for whom this bias seems like the only consideration, I have other biases which keep things in balance. On this issue, I don't know if I ever told pen-l about a cousin who works for Pat Buchanan (as a "think" tanker). He's against free trade because it leads to rising class antagonism and disrupts society. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
if the (neo)liberals in government (a group that included Brad awhile ago) would push to adequately compensate workers who lose their jobs due to trade-related problems (not to mention capital flight), then you would see many fewer unions and pro-union folks siding with slimy folks like Milliken. Give me Speaker Gephardt and Majority Leader Daschle, and we would do it... We should all hope so, but why didn't our boyz Foley and Mitchell 'do it' in 1993? mbs
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
No more unknown governors from small southern states... How about senators from small southern states who are known only because of the success of their 1992 running mates (and who have been simply following orders for the last 7 years) or governors from large southern states who are known because of their fathers' fame? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
actually, there is hardly any opposition to neo-liberal program in the US. United Steel Workers already allied with big steel industry to protect US jobs, thanks to bourgeois unions. Free trade and protectionism are the sides of the same coin=imperialism, capitalism and core hegemony, which is part of the US strategy of "divide and rule" for centuries. I think US liberal acedemics, especially of the pro-free trade kind, should stop idealizing what they don't have.. or they should seriously think about why socialism does not work in this part of the universe. Mine Jim Devine wrote: -- If the US capitalist class and its government thinks that free trade (and more importantly, free mobility of capital) is so all-fired important why don't they pay US workers to compensate for the inevitable costs of freeing up trade? This would undermine the opposition to their neo-liberal program. Mine Aysen Doyran PhD Student Department of Political Science SUNY at Albany Nelson A. Rockefeller College 135 Western Ave.; Milne 102 Albany, NY 1
Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: [weisbrot-columns] Not Exactly FreeTrade
In a message dated 00-05-08 18:36:14 EDT, you write: No more unknown governors from small southern states... What about relatively well known ex-Senators from small Southern states, Brad? --jks