Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 77
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    No, that is unrestricted global capitalism.
    We do live in a global economy, don't we?

    My point is good paying middle-working class jobs are being replaced in this country with low paying service industry jobs. There has to be some protectionism for the American manufacturing industry. Part of that can begin with our daily purchases and yes, if widget A costs $3 and widget B is $4 but made in the U.S. you darn well should be buying widget B.
    The might work if everything were 3 to 4 dollars, but if we are talking about big ticket items - a 25% difference is quite hard to ignore sometimes.

    I am going to touch on something you alluded to above about protectionism. Does anyone else find it annoying that countries like Japan do not give us the same access to their markets like we do for their products here?
  2.    #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Sling, on the political front, I think you're casting guilt where it does not belong where it comes to China and the US.]
    You have not been reading my post.I blame both Parties for the mess this country is in and it gets more out of control as we speak.Bush is in talks with south Korea for free trade.


    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    What began under Reagan in 1985, the trade deficit with China has more than tripled from 2000 thru 2006. The US debt held by China only continues to fuel the national debt horror we face which was 64% of GDP in 2006.

    Source: http://www.treas.gov/tic/external-debt.html
    Pretty sad really.The American Citizen is kept in the dark and does not realize the ramifications these numbers are causing.

    1)We currently have a war with no end in sight
    2)Open border for illegals to cross
    3)A trade deficit which is rapping America

    Democrats are jocking for position to bring higher taxes so they can take care of the poor or the reality... Keep us depending on the government for all are needs.
    Maybe they can can give us RED arm bands with the National ID card...That would be Pretty.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 05:48 AM.
  3.    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    We do live in a global economy, don't we??
    We live in a Country named America that has sold itself to are enemies being free trade with no restriction to keep are next generation and future in tact



    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I am going to touch on something you alluded to above about protectionism. Does anyone else find it annoying that countries like Japan do not give us the same access to their markets like we do for their products here?
    And that's my point.President Reagan took the Approach that was the right one with Japan.If we open the door for you your doors must be open for us.Japans doors Closed when Clinton took over and we gained a cheaper priced DVD player.


    To Members Reading this thread.
    Enjoy your walmart shopping experience on a beautiful Sunday in America but lets take a read first one were those very inexpensive items come from.This is not to make anyone feel guilty for there spending actions but to let that Spender know the actions of are elected representatives that have brought us to this point.RED China is one of are Favs when it comes to free trade.Maybe something you didn't know about them will be discovered in the read below.

    Sacrifices on the Altar of Free Trade
    Barbara Anderson
    September 14, 2007

    The North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was sold to the American people through their representatives in Congress as a win-win agreement for us all. The promise was that it would open up foreign markets to our industries and thereby create more jobs for Americans, leading to more prosperity.

    It turns out that the only winners are the multi-national companies that now outsource jobs for cheaper labor and rosier bottom lines. With fewer jobs that pay less, our workers have lost a valuable livelihood, while the corporations’ CEOs and others at the corporate top of the ladder are making unheard-of salaries, bonuses and other benefits.

    Also, in other trade agreements that have opened up our markets, we now see Red China developing its industries and fueling its massive military buildup. On TV Red China flaunts the modern and deadly armaments they have bought and the seemingly endless sea of soldiers in uniform. Those armaments were purchased with money from their goods sold to the American people. There was a time when this country would not trade so freely with Red China, a time when morality still was a component in determining just who would get the benefit of our profitable market. Although Red China is still a mostly closed society, we knew long ago about the complete lack of human rights. We knew of the sweat shops. We saw the valiant attempt at some semblance of rights for the people at Tiennamen Square. We saw a small, lone figure challenge the might of the masters of Red China as he stood in front of a large tank. Those attempts were quickly squashed as some of those protesters were mowed down in one way or another. Sacrifices.

    We have heard from those who escaped that grim fate that other sacrifices are being made. Dissidents are imprisoned and used as stock for organ transplants.

    These prisoners are killed when the demand arises for their organs. This is a highly lucrative market. What would someone pay for an organ that would save one’s life? Waiting for months or years on a donor list in this country or others often means the death of the ones waiting. So healthy political prisoners become valuable commodities on the organ market. Sacrifices.

    Humans are not the only stock being used for profit in Red China. Devvy Kidd, in her article of December 14, 2005, writing for NewsWithViews.com, tells of the horror of watching a video of what happened to dogs and cats:

    “The men grabbed each cage off this huge truck and threw them to the ground - as high up as 3‘. The cries of these adorable dogs and cats as they hit the ground sent me into shock. Several dogs and cats crammed into each cage, many already bloodied and many whose bones would break upon impact. I can still hear their screams.

    As I watched the video progress, I realized that I was crying. The screams of live dogs and cats as they were skinned alive, their big eyes begging for mercy and receiving none, ripped my heart out and brought incredible rage from deep down inside. The next shots of cat pelts laid our on the floor with all the dead bodies still twitching in piles cast aside like garbage, would have driven someone with a weak stomach right to the bathroom. It hardened my resolve against trading with barbarians. I can still hear their screams.

    ………This is an everyday operation by ‘businessmen’ who drive their trucks on the street like a produce truck would in the U.S. It’s estimated these barbarians skin millions of dogs and cats every year - while they are alive. As I watched these ‘workers’ go about their barbaric practice, I wondered how Americans could continue supporting them with their consumer dollar? This is Communist China in all its brutality. The skinning of live dogs and cats is done for money. These barbarians sell the pelts and toss the ‘meat’. These pelts are illegally being intertwined with fake fur for many retail items being sold in the U.S., I.e., doll clothes and into fabric for human garments, I.e. parka hoods and sweaters”.


    Small sacrifices.

    Although this is supposed to be illegal in the U.S., we have seen the loosely controlled imports from Red China which have damaged the health of even our children. Lots of our pets were poisoned by ingredients in dog and cat food from Red China. Some died. Sacrifices must be made. One common thing to come into contact with most of our children, toys, have been found to have dangerous elements in them. Toys ‘R’ Us says it imports about 70% of its products, largely from Red China. Our own industries must compete with those that break our laws. Our own industries have been heavily controlled by our laws for many years, precluding massive injury to children. But, goods from Red China are cheap, so sacrifices must be made.

    Our FDA, charged with overseeing the safety of products introduced to U.S. markets, has reported that “tainted food imports from China are being rejected with increasing frequency because they are filthy, are contaminated with pesticides and tainted with carcinogens, bacteria and banned drugs“, according to an article on WorldNetDaily.com on June 26, 2007. Sacrifices.

    WND’s same article reports on tires imported from Red China that have been found to be defective, resulting in allegedly at least one fatal traffic accident, spurring a lawsuit in New Jersey. In the suit Jeffrey B. Killino, an attorney in the law firm representing the families of the deceased and injured, stated:

    “The Hangzhou Rubber Company deliberately and secretly removed a safety feature from these tires and two young men died as a direct result. This was a tragedy that didn’t have to happen, but hopefully we can prevent future fatal crashes”.

    WorldNetDaily sums up some of the tainted and dangerous products Red China is sending to us. They include seafood, toys, fireworks, electrical products and much more. (June 26, 2007) Added to that list is honey. As almost 70% of the honey used in this country is imported, mostly from China, the FDA should have been concentrating on this food. It is problematic that so much is imported when we have had many producers in the past in our own country who were willing to abide by FDA rules. How many have been driven out of business by cheaper foreign imports?

    So-called Free Trade has broken down our defenses against tainted foods and other dangerous imports. Our agencies that were set up to monitor these products are overwhelmed.

    We the People are buying these products in massive quantities. To prove this, I challenge you to look at the source country for the products available to you. That cute little jacket with the faux fur may not be entirely fake fur. It may be one of the animals described by Kidd after watching a video of how those pelts are harvested. She keeps repeating “I can still hear their cries”. Can you hear those cries, not only of animals we consider pets, dogs and cats?

    Can you also hear the cries of those in this country who have lost their jobs? How about the cries of children poisoned by tainted food or toys containing lethal toxic lead? And, the cries of the families of Americans who trusted imported tires on their cars….to their deaths?

    Or, are these just the cost of doing business, of getting that shirt or some sandals for a cheap price? As long as we are buying, the big companies are going to be supplying. Are these sacrifices we will continue to make?

    “An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.”
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 07:46 AM.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    You have not been reading my post.I blame both Parties for the mess this country is in and it gets more out of control as we speak.
    No, I've been keeping up with some of your posts. Such as those taking overly easy potshots at anything having to do with the Democratic Party which undermines your efforts to "blame both parties."

    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    If we do away with fast food all together the gases discharged from are bodies would be lowered to help stop global warming .We all could eat nuts and berries ,hold hands and sing 'We are the world' with algore.
    Although you belatedly edited your post to reflect that this is just your 'humor', your 'humor' only appears to run in one direction. Curious that.
  5.    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    No, I've been keeping up with some of your posts. Such as those taking overly easy potshots at anything having to do with the Democratic Party which undermines your efforts to "blame both parties." .
    You are threatened by my post and take them as negative on how it reflects you..the party you support. Best bet would be for you to relax and enjoy the ride of facts that cant be denied .Both parties are guilty.. republican and Democrat alike .How often does one have to tell you that before it finally sinks in to the liberal thought processes .Open your eyes and read my post please before you post your rebuttal



    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Although you belatedly edited your post to reflect that this is just your 'humor', your 'humor' only appears to run in one direction. Curious that.
    Reading your past post your response to mine is the norm .I have no need outwit you for you are doing that job to yourself.Lets move on for I have no need for your kiddie antics....Or at least let memebers viewing know that your joking.It,s your easy way out...Take it
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/14/2007 at 10:24 AM. Reason: on
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    You are threatened by my post and take them as negative on how it reflects you [insult]..the party you support. Best bet would be for you to relax and enjoy the ride of facts that cant be denied .Both parties are guilty.. republican and Democrat alike .How often does one have to tell you that before it finally sinks in to the liberal thought processes. [insult] Open your eyes and read my post please before you post your rebuttal
    Those using "liberal thought processes" can be much more easily reasoned with when speech such as "We all could eat nuts and berries ,hold hands and sing 'We are the world' with algore" or barbs such as those above and below are not used. Fair enough?

    Reading your past post your response to mine is the norm .I have no need outwit you for you are doing that job to yourself [insult].Lets move on for I have no need for your kiddie antics.[insult]
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    You have not been reading my post.
    Maybe so. But then you go on to say rhetorical non-sense such as this that undermines your supposed neutral position.

    Democrats are jocking for position to bring higher taxes so they can take care of the poor or the reality... Keep us depending on the government for all are needs.
    Maybe they can can give us RED arm bands with the National ID card...That would be Pretty.
    How exactly are these comments constructive or lend themselves to a thoughtful discussion on the subject you are so impassioned by?

    Frankly, anyone that can blame one party more than the other is equally full of BS. The trade deficit has been spinning out of control over multiple administrations now, across party lines, and none seem to have any answers or the intestinal fortitude to do much about it.
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Those using "liberal thought processes" can be much more easily reasoned with when speech such as "We all could eat nuts and berries ,hold hands and sing 'We are the world' with algore" or barbs such as those above and below are not used. Fair enough?
    We will consider your post another joke I considerd the post your quoted a joke or a form of trolling in the thread you pulled it from.Take time to read my friend read or just call me dish boy
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Frankly, anyone that can blame one party more than the other is equally full of BS.
    Some are making it painfully clear that they either cannot or choose not to treat political matters with a shred of integrity. So goes the downward spiral that they oddly complain about.
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Maybe so. But then you go on to say rhetorical non-sense such as this that undermines your supposed neutral position.



    How exactly are these comments constructive or lend themselves to a thoughtful discussion on the subject you are so impassioned by?

    Frankly, anyone that can blame one party more than the other is equally full of BS. The trade deficit has been spinning out of control over multiple administrations now, across party lines, and none seem to have any answers or the intestinal fortitude to do much about it.
    heheh well lets blame anything that has to do with free trade on the republicans then if it will make you feel better about this topic seeing you feel that your party is being judged unfairly by my post lol.You left wingers need to go try to pick on gojeda because you are not going to win a fight in this thread. The facts dont lie.Now you really got me going lol lol Keep your eyes on this thread.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    heheh well lets blame anything that has to do with free trade on the republicans then if it will make you feel better about this topic seeing you feel that your party is being judged unfairly by my post lol.You left wingers need to go try to pick on gojeda because you are not going to win a fight in this thread. The facts dont lie.Now you really got me going lol lol Keep your eyes on this thread.
    I've not mentioned gojeda at all. And you obviously didn't read my entire post either.

    So as the brits say, "what are you on about?"
  12.    #32  
    A blast from the past What does it mean to you??

    Works of Karl Marx 1848
    Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848 [246]

    On the Question of Free Trade



    Source, MECW Volume 6, p. 450;
    Written: 9 January 1848;
    First published: as a pamphlet in Brussels, February 1848.


    Gentlemen,

    The Repeal of the Corn Laws in England is the greatest triumph of free trade in the 19th century. In every country where manufacturers talk of free trade, they have in mind chiefly free trade in corn and raw materials in general. To impose protective duties on foreign corn is infamous, it is to speculate on the famine of peoples.

    Cheap food, high wages, this is the sole aim for which English free-traders have spent millions, and their enthusiasm has already spread to their brethren on the Continent. Generally speaking, those who wish for free trade desire it in order to alleviate the condition of the working class.

    But, strange to say, the people for whom cheap food is to be procured at all costs are very ungrateful. Cheap food is as ill-esteemed in England as cheap government is in France. The people see in these self-sacrificing gentlemen, in Bowring, Bright and Co., their worst enemies and the most shameless hypocrites.

    Everyone knows that in England the struggle between Liberals and Democrats takes the name of the struggle between Free-Traders and Chartists.

    Let us now see how the English free-traders have proved to the people the good intentions that animate them.

    This is what they said to the factory workers:

    "The duty levied on corn is a tax upon wages; this tax you pay to the landlords, those medieval aristocrats; if your position is wretched one, it is on account of the dearness of the immediate necessities of life."

    The workers in turn asked the manufacturers:

    "How is it that in the course of the last 30 years, while our industry has undergone the greatest development, our wages have fallen far more rapidly, in proportion, than the price of corn has gone up?

    "The tax which you say we pay the landlords is about 3 pence a week per worker. And yet the wages of the hand-loom weaver fell, between 1815 and 1843, from 28s. per week to 5s., and the wages of the power-loom weavers, between 1823 and 1843, from 20s. per week to 8s.

    "And during the whole of this period that portion of the tax which we paid to the landlord has never exceeded 3 pence. And, then in the year 1834, when bread was very cheap and business going on very well, what did you tell us? You said, 'If you are unfortunate, it is because you have too many children, and your marriages are more productive than your labor!'

    "These are the very words you spoke to us, and you set about making new Poor Laws, and building work-houses, the Bastilles of the proletariat."

    To this the manufacturer replied:

    "You are right, worthy laborers; it is not the price of corn alone, but competition of the hands among themselves as well, which determined wages.

    "But ponder well one thing, namely, that our soil consists only of rocks and sandbanks. You surely do not imagine that corn can be grown in flower-pots. So if, instead of lavishing our capital and our labor upon a thoroughly sterile soil, we were to give up agriculture, and devote ourselves exclusively to industry, all Europe would abandon its factories, and England would form one huge factory town, with the whole of the rest of Europe for its countryside."

    While thus haranguing his own workingmen, the manufacturer is interrogated by the small trader, who says to him:

    "If we repeal the Corn Laws, we shall indeed ruin agriculture; but for all that, we shall not compel other nations to give up their own factories and buy from ours.

    "What will the consequence be? I shall lose the customers that I have at present in the country, and the home trade will lose its market."

    The manufacturer, turning his back upon the workers, replies to the shopkeeper:

    "As to that, you leave it to us! Once rid of the duty on corn, we shall import cheaper corn from abroad. Then we shall reduce wages at the very time when they rise in the countries where we get out corn.

    "Thus in addition to the advantages which we already enjoy we shall also have that of lower wages and, with all these advantage, we shall easily force the Continent to buy from us."

    But now the farmers and agricultural laborers join in the discussion.

    "And what, pray, is to become of us?

    "Are we going to pass a sentence of death upon agriculture, from which we get our living? Are we to allow the soil to be torn from beneath our feet?"

    As its whole answer, the Anti-Corn Law League has contented itself with offering prizes for the three best essays upon the wholesome influence of the repeal of the Corn Laws on English agriculture.

    These prizes were carried off by Messrs. Hope, Morse, and Greg, whose essays were distributed in thousands of copies throughout the countryside.

    The first of the prize-winners devotes himself to proving that neither the tenant farmer nor the agricultural laborer will lose by the free importation of foreign corn, but only the landlord.

    "The English tenant farmer," he exclaims, "need not fear the repeal of the Corn Laws, because no other country can produce such good corn so cheaply as England.

    "Thus, even if the price of corn fell, it would not hurt you, because this fall would only affect rent, which would go down, and not at all industrial profit and wages, which would remain stationary."

    The second prize-winner, Mr. Morse, maintains, on the contrary, that the price of corn will rise in consequence of repeal. He takes infinite pains to prove that protective duties nave never been able to secure a remunerative price for corn.

    In support for his assertion, he cites the fact that, whenever foreign corn has been imported, the price of corn in England has gone up considerably, and then when little corn has been imported, the price has fallen extremely. This prize-winner forgets that the importation was not the cause of the high price, but that the high price was the cause of the importation.

    And in direct contradiction to his co-prize-winner, he asserts that every rise in the price of corn is profitable to both the tenant farmer and the laborer, but not to the landlord.

    The third prize-winner, Mr. Greg, who is a big manufacturer and whose work is addressed to the large tenant farmers, could not hold with such stupidities. His language is more scientific.

    He admits that the Corn Laws can raise rent only by raising the price of corn, and that they can raise the price of corn only by compelling capital to apply itself to land of inferior quality, and this is explained quite simply.

    In proportion as population increases, if foreign corn cannot be imported, less fertile soil has to be used, the cultivation of which involves more expense and the product of this soil is consequently dearer.

    There being a forced sale for corn, the price will of necessity be determined by the price of the product of the most costly soil. The difference between this price and the cost of production upon soil of better quality constitutes the rent.

    If, therefore, as a result of the repeal of the Corn Laws, the price of corn, and consequently the rent, falls, it is because inferior soil will no longer be cultivated. Thus, the reduction of rent must inevitably ruin a part of the tenant farmers.

    These remarks were necessary in order to make Mr. Greg's language comprehensible.

    "The small farmers," he says, "who cannot support themselves by agriculture will find a resource in industry. As to the large tenant farmers, they cannot fail to profit. Either the landlords will be obliged to sell them land very cheap, or leases will be made out for very long periods. This will enable tenant farmers to apply large sums of capital to the land, to use agricultural machinery on a larger scale, and to save manual labor, which will, moreover, be cheaper, on account of the general fall in wages, the immediate consequences of the repeal of the Corn Laws."

    Dr. Browning conferred upon all these arguments the consecration of religion, by exclaiming at a public meeting,

    "Jesus Christ is Free Trade, and Free Trade is Jesus Christ."

    One can understand that all this hypocrisy was not calculated to make cheap bread attractive to the workers.

    Besides, how could the workingman understand the sudden philanthropy of the manufacturers, the very men still busy fighting against the Ten Hours' Bill, which was to reduce the working day of the mill hands from 12 hours to 10?

    To give you an idea of the philanthropy of these manufacturers I would remind you, gentlemen, of the factory regulations in force in all the mills.

    Every manufacturer has for his own private use a regular penal code in which fines are laid down for every voluntary or involuntary offence. For instance, the worker pays so much if he has the misfortune to sit down on a chair; if he whispers, or speaks, or laughs; if he arrives a few moments too late; if any part of the machine breaks, or he does not turn out work of the quality desired, etc., etc. The fines are always greater than the damage really done by the worker. And to give the worker every opportunity for incurring fines, the factory clock is set forward, and he is given bad raw material to make into good pieces of stuff. An overseer not sufficiently skillful in multiplying cases of infractions or rules is discharged.

    You see, gentlemen, this private legislation is enacted for the especial purpose of creating such infractions, and infractions are manufactured for the purpose of making money. Thus the manufacturer uses every means of reducing the nominal wage, and of profiting even by accidents over which the worker has no control.

    These manufacturers are the same philanthropists who have tried to make the workers believe that they were capable of going to immense expense for the sole purpose of ameliorating their lot. Thus, on the one hand, they nibble at the wages of the worker in the pettiest way, by means of factory regulations, and, on the other, they are undertaking the greatest sacrifices to raise those wages again by means of the Anti-Corn Law League.

    They build great palaces at immense expense, in which the League takes up, in some respects, its official residence; they send an army of missionaries to all corners of England to preach the gospel of free trade; they have printed and distributed gratis thousands of pamphlets to enlighten the worker upon his own interests, they spend enormous sums to make the press favorable to their cause; they organize a vast administrative system for the conduct of the free trade movement, and they display all their wealth of eloquence at public meetings. It was at one of these meetings that a worker cried out:

    "If the landlords were to sell our bones, you manufacturers would be the first to buy them in order to put them through a steam-mill and make flour of them."

    The English workers have very well understood the significance of the struggle between the landlords and the industrial capitalists. They know very well that the price of bread was to be reduced in order to reduce wages, and that industrial profit would rise by as much as rent fell.

    Ricardo, the apostle of the English free-traders, the most eminent economist of our century, entirely agrees with the workers upon this point. In his celebrated work on political economy, he says:

    "If instead of growing our own corn... we discover a new market from which we can supply ourselves... at a cheaper price, wages will fall and profits rise. The fall in the price of agricultural produce reduces the wages, not only of the laborer employed in cultivating the soil, but also of all those employed in commerce or manufacture."

    [David Ricardo, Des principes de l'economie politique et de l'impot.
    Traduit de l'anglais par F. S. Constancio, avec des notes explicatives et critiques par J.-B.- Say. T. I., Paris 1835, p.178-79]

    And do not believe, gentlemen, that is is a matter of indifference to the worker whether he receives only four francs on account of corn being cheaper, when he had been receiving five francs before.

    Have not his wages always fallen in comparison with profit, and is it not clear that his social position has grown worse as compared with that of the capitalist? Besides which he loses more as a matter of fact.

    So long as the price of corn was higher and wages were also higher, a small saving in the consumption of bread sufficed to procure him other enjoyments. But as soon as bread is very cheap, and wages are therefore very cheap, he can save almost nothing on bread for the purchase of other articles.

    The English workers have made the English free-traders realize that they are not the dupes of their illusions or of their lies; and if, in spite of this, the workers made common cause with them against the landlords, it was for the purpose of destroying the last remnants of feudalism and in order to have only one enemy left to deal with. The workers have not miscalculated, for the landlords, in order to revenge themselves upon the manufacturers, made common cause with the workers to carry the Ten Hours' Bill, which the latter had been vainly demanding for 30 years, and which was passed immediately after the repeal of the Corn Laws.

    When Dr. Bowring, at the Congress of Economists [September 16-18, 1848; the following, among others, were present: Dr. Bowring, M.P., Colonel Thompson, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Brown, and James Wilson, editor of the Economist], drew from his pocket a long list to show how many head of cattle, how much ham, bacon, poultry, etc., was imported into England, to be consumed, as he asserted, by the workers, he unfortunately forgot to tell you that all the time the workers of Manchester and other factory towns were finding themselves thrown into the streets by the crisis which was beginning.

    As a matter of principle in political economy, the figures of a single year must never be taken as the basis for formulating general laws. One must always take the average period of from six to seven years -- a period of time during which modern industry passes through the various phases of prosperity, overproduction, stagnation, crisis, and completes its inevitable cycle.

    Doubtless, if the price of all commodities falls -- and this is the necessary consequence of free trade -- I can buy far more for a franc than before. And the worker's france is as good as any other man's. Therefore, free trade will be very advantageous to the worker. There is only little difficulty in this, namely, that the worker, before he exchanges his franc for other commodities, has first exchanged his labor with the capitalist. If in this exchange he always received the said franc for the same labor and the price of all other commodities fell, he would always be the gainer by such a bargain. The difficult point does not lie in proving that, if the price of all commodities falls, I will get more commodities for the same money.

    Economists always take the price of labor at the moment of its exchange with other commodities. But they altogether ignore the moment at which labor accomplishes its own exchange with capital.

    When less expense is required to set in motion the machine which produces commodities, the things necessary for the maintenance of this machine, called a worker, will also cost less. If all commodities are cheaper, labor, which is a commodity too, will also fall in price, and, as we shall see later, this commodity, labor, will fall far lower in proportion than the other commodities. If the worker still pins his faith to the arguments of the economists, he will find that the franc has melted away in his pocket, and that he has only 5 sous left.

    Thereupon the economists will tell you:

    "Well, we admit that competition among the workers, which will certainly not have diminished under free trade, will very soon bring wages into harm,only with the low price of commodities. But, on the other hand, the low price of commodities will increase consumption, the larger consumption will require increased production, which will be followed by a larger demand for hands, and this larger demand for hands will be followed by a rise in wages."

    The whole line of argument amounts to this: Free trade increases productive forces. If industry keeps growing, if wealth, if the productive power, if, in a word, productive capital increases, the demand for labor,the price of labor, and consequently the rate of wages, rise also.

    The most favorable condition for the worker is the growth of capital. This must be admitted. If capital remains stationary, industry will not merely remain stationary but will decline, and in this case the worker will be the first victim. He goes to the wall before the capitalist. And in the case where capital keeps growing, in the circumstance which we have said are the best for the worker, what will be his lot? He will go to the wall just the same. The growth of productive capital implies the accumulation and the concentration of capital. The centralization of capital involves a greater division of labor and a greater use of machinery. The greater division of labor destroys the especial skill of the laborer; and by putting in the place of this skilled work labor which anybody can perform, it increase competition among the workers.

    This competition becomes fiercer as the division of labor enables a single worker to do the work of three. Machinery accomplishes the same result on a much larger scale. The growth of productive capital, which forces the industrial capitalists to work with constantly increasing means, ruins the small industrialist and throws them into the proletariat. Then, the rate of interest falling in proportion as capital accumulates, the small rentiers, who can no longer live on their dividends, are forced to go into industry and thus swell the number of proletarians.

    Finally, the more productive capital increases, the more it is compelled to produce for a market whose requirements it does not know, the more production precedes consumption, the more supply tries to force demand, and consumption crises increase in frequency and in intensity. But every crisis in turn hastens the centralization of capital and adds to the proletariat.

    Thus, as productive capital grows, competition among the workers grows in a far greater proportion. The reward of labor diminishes for all, and the burden of labor increases for some.

    In 1829, there were in Manchester 1,088 cotton spinners employed in 36 factories. In 1841, there were no more than 448, and they tended 53,353 more spindles than the 1,088 spinners did in 1829. In manual labor had increased in the same proportion as the productive power, the number of spinners ought to have reaches the figure of 1,848; improved machinery had, therefore, deprived 1,100 workers of employment.

    We know beforehand the reply of the economists. The men thus deprived of work, they say, will find other kinds of employment. Dr. Bowring did not fail to reproduce this argument at the Congress of Economists, but neither did he fail to supply his own refutation.

    In 1835, Dr. Bowring made a speech in the House of Commons upon the 50,000 hand-loom weavers of London who for a very long time had been starving without being able to find that new kind of employment which the free-traders hold out to them in the distance.

    We will give the most striking passages of this speech of Dr. Bowring:

    "This distress of the weavers... is an incredible condition of a species of labor easily learned -- and constantly intruded on and superseded by cheaper means of production. A very short cessation of demand, where the competition for work is so great... produces a crisis. The hand-loom weavers are on the verge of that state beyond which human existence can hardly be sustained, and a very trifling check hurls them into the regions of starvation.... The improvements of machinery, ...by superseding manual labor more and more, infallibly bring with them in the transition much of temporary suffering.... The national good cannot be purchased but at the expense of some individual evil. No advance was ever made in manufactures but at some cost to those who are in the rear; and of all discoveries, the power-loom is that which most directly bears on the condition of the hand-loom weaver. He is already beaten out of the field in many articles; he will infallibly be compelled to surrender many more."

    Further on he says:

    "I hold in my hand the correspondence which has taken place between the Governor-General of India and the East-India Company, on the subject of the Dacca hand-loom weavers.... Some years ago the East-India Company annually received of the produce of the looms of India to the amount of from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 of pieces of cotton goods. The demand gradually fell to somewhat more than 1,000,000, and has now nearly ceased altogether. In 1800, the United States took from India nearly 800,000 pieces of cotton; in 1830, not 4,000. In 1800, 1,000,000 pieces were shipped to Portugal; in 1830, only 20,000. Terrible were the accounts of the wretchedness of the poor Indian weavers, reduced to absolute starvation. And what was the sole cause? The presence of the cheaper English manufacture.... Numbers of them dies of hunger, the remainder were, for the most part, transferred to other occupations, principally agricultural. Not to have changed their trade was inevitable starvation. And at this moment that Dacca district is supplied with yarn and cotton cloth from the power-looms of England.... The Dacca muslins, celebrated over the whole world for their beauty and fineness, are also annihilated from the same cause. And the present suffering, to numerous classes in India, is scarcely to be paralleled in the history of commerce."

    [ Speech in the House of Commons, July 28, 1835. (Hansard, Vol.XXIX, London 1835, pp.1168-70) ]

    Dr. Bowring's speech is the more remarkable because the facts quoted by him are exact, and the phrases with which he seeks to palliate them are wholly characterized by the hypocrisy common to all free trade sermons. He represents the workers as means of production which must be superseded by less expensive means of production. He pretends to see in the labor of which he speaks a wholly exceptional kind of labor, and in the machine which has crushed out the weavers an equally exceptional machine. He forgets that there is no kind of manual labor which may not any day be subjected to the fate of the hand-loom weavers.

    "It is, in fact, the constant aim and tendency of every improvement in machine to supersede human labor altogether, or to diminish its cost by substituting the industry of women and children for that of men; or that of ordinary laborers for trained artisans. In most of the water-twist, or throstle cotton-mills, the spinning is entirely managed by females of 16 years and upwards. The effect of substituting the self-acting mule for the common mule, is to discharge the greater part of the men spinners, and to retain adolescents and children."

    [Dr. Andrew Ure, The Philosophy of Manufactures
    London 1835. Book I, Chap.I, p.23]

    These words of the most enthusiastic free-trader, Dr. Ure, serve to complement the confessions of Dr. Bowring. Dr. Bowring speaks of certain individual evils, and, at the same time, says that these individual evils destroy whole classes; he speaks of the temporary sufferings during the transition period, and at the very time of speaking of them, he does not deny that these temporary evils have implied for the majority the transition from life to death, and for the rest a transition from a better to a worse condition. If he asserts, farther on, that the sufferings of these workers are inseparable from the progress of industry, and are necessary to the prosperity of the nation, he simply says that the prosperity of the bourgeois class presupposed as necessary the suffering of the laboring class.

    All the consolation which Dr. Bowring offers the workers who perish, and, indeed, the whole doctrine of compensation which the free-traders propound, amounts to this:

    You thousands of workers who are perishing, do not despair! You can die with an easy conscience. Your class will not perish. It will always be numerous enough for the capitalist class to decimate it without fear of annihilating it. Besides, how could capital be usefully applied if it did not take care always to keep up its exploitable material, i.e., the workers, to exploit them over and over again?

    But, besides, why propound as a problem still to be solved the question: What influence will the adoption of free trade have upon the condition of the working class? All the laws formulated by the political economists from Quesnay to Ricardo have been based upon the hypothesis that the trammels which still interfere with commercial freedom have disappeared. These laws are confirmed in proportion as free trade is adopted. The first of these laws is that competition reduces the price of every commodity to the minimum cost of production. Thus the minimum of wages is the natural price of labor. And what is the minimum of wages? Just so much as is required for production of the articles indispensable for the maintenance of the worker, for putting him in a position to sustain himself, however badly, and to propagate his race, however slightly.

    But do not imagine that the worker receives only this minimum wage, and still less that he always receives it.

    No, according to this law, the working class will sometimes be more fortunate. It will sometimes receive something above the minimum, but this surplus will merely make up for the deficit which it will have received below the minimum in times of industrial stagnation. That is to say that, within a given time which recurs periodically, in the cycle which industry passes through while undergoing the vicissitudes of prosperity, overproduction, stagnation and crisis, when reckoning all that the working class will have had above and below necessaries, we shall see that, in all, it will have received neither more nor less than the minimum; i.e., the working class will have maintained itself as a class after enduring any amount of misery and misfortune, and after leaving many corpses upon the industrial battlefield. But what of that? The class will still exist; nay, more, it will have increased.

    But this is not all. The progress of industry creates less expensive means of subsistence. Thus spirits have taken the place of beer, cotton that of wool and linen, and potatoes that of bread.

    Thus, as means are constantly being found for the maintenance of labor on cheaper and more wretched food, the minimum of wages is constantly sinking. If these wages began by making the man work to live, they end by making him live the life of a machine. His existence has not other value than that of a simple productive force, and the capitalist treats him accordingly.

    This law of commodity labor, of the minimum of wages, will be confirmed in proportion as the supposition of the economists, free-trade, becomes an actual fact. Thus, of two things one: either we must reject all political economy based on the assumption of free trade, or we must admit that under this free trade the whole severity of the economic laws will fall upon the workers.

    To sum up, what is free trade, what is free trade under the present condition of society? It is freedom of capital. When you have overthrown the few national barriers which still restrict the progress of capital, you will merely have given it complete freedom of action. So long as you let the relation of wage labor to capital exist, it does not matter how favorable the conditions under which the exchange of commodities takes place, there will always be a class which will exploit and a class which will be exploited. It is really difficult to understand the claim of the free-traders who imagine that the more advantageous application of capital will abolish the antagonism between industrial capitalists and wage workers. On the contrary, the only result will be that the antagonism of these two classes will stand out still more clearly.

    Let us assume for a moment that there are no more Corn Laws or national or local custom duties; in fact that all the accidental circumstances which today the worker may take to be the cause of his miserable condition have entirely vanished, and you will have removed so many curtains that hide from his eyes his true enemy.

    He will see that capital become free will make him no less a slave than capital trammeled by customs duties.

    Gentlemen! Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker.

    Why should you desire to go on sanctioning free competition with this idea of freedom, when this freedom is only the product of a state of things based upon free competition?

    We have shown what sort of brotherhood free trade begets between the different classes of one and the same nation. The brotherhood which free trade would establish between the nations of the Earth would hardly be more fraternal. To call cosmopolitan exploitation universal brotherhood is an idea that could only be engendered in the brain of the bourgeoisie. All the destructive phenomena which unlimited competition gives rise to within one country are reproduced in more gigantic proportions on the world market. We need not dwell any longer upon free trade sophisms on this subject, which are worth just as much as the arguments of our prize-winners Messrs. Hope, Morse, and Greg.

    For instance, we are told that free trade would create an international division of labor, and thereby give to each country the production which is most in harmony with its natural advantage.

    You believe, perhaps, gentlemen, that the production of coffee and sugar is the natural destiny of the West Indies.

    Two centuries ago, nature, which does not trouble herself about commerce, had planted neither sugar-cane nor coffee trees there.

    And it may be that in less than half a century you will find there neither coffee nor sugar, for the East Indies, by means of cheaper production, have already successfully combatted his alleged natural destiny of the West Indies. And the West Indies, with their natural wealth, are already as heavy a burden for England as the weavers of Dacca, who also were destined from the beginning of time to weave by hand.

    One other thing must never be forgotten, namely, that, just as everything has become a monopoly, there are also nowadays some branches of industry which dominate all others, and secure to the nations which most largely cultivate them the command of the world market. Thus in international commerce cotton alone has much greater commercial than all the other raw materials used in the manufacture of clothing put together. It is truly ridiculous to see the free-traders stress the few specialities in each branch of industry,throwing them into the balance against the products used in everyday consumption and produced most cheaply in those countries in which manufacture is most highly developed.

    If the free-traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same gentlemen also refuse to understand how within one country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another.

    Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticizing freedom of trade we have the least intention of defending the system of protection.

    One may declare oneself an enemy of the constitutional regime without declaring oneself a friend of the ancient regime.

    Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free trade competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country.

    But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    heheh well lets blame anything that has to do with free trade on the republicans then if it will make you feel better
    I said no such thing. I blamed both parties.

    about this topic seeing you feel that your party is being judged unfairly by my post lol.
    My party? I'm a registered independent and former Goldwater Republican. That said, I thought you said you blame both sides? You seem to implying here that you do in fact blame the Dems? So which is it? You're neutral or you blame the Dems?

    You left wingers need to go try to pick on gojeda because you are not going to win a fight in this thread.
    Well you must be referring to some that are further left of me on the subject. And again, I've not mentioned gojeda at all so I'm not sure what you are talking about.

    The facts dont lie.Now you really got me going lol lol Keep your eyes on this thread.
    Oh I will. The trick seems to be wading through all of your rhetoric to find whatever morsels of facts you claim to be purporting.

    FWIW - I think I'm somewhere between daThomas and gojeda on the subject. And I don't know that either one of them are all that far apart.
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/14/2007 at 11:18 AM.
  14.    #34  
    I'm on my way to church my liberal friends and then Sunday football game watching.I will play the game you love to play later.
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    A blast from the past What does it mean to you??

    Works of Karl Marx 1848
    Speech to the Democratic Association of Brussels at its public meeting of January 9, 1848 [246]

    On the Question of Free Trade
    I think it means you may want to buy a time-capsule and join the rest of us here in the 21st century.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    I'm on my way to church my liberal friends and then Sunday football game watching.I will play the game you love to play later.
    sling, I don't even think that you know what "game" you are talking about, let alone the rest of us.
  17.    #37  
    Ok im running late I must bail..Sling play later
    Enjoy

    More Free Trade: The Creation of the FTAA


    In 1994, around the time of the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), President Clinton called for the expansion of free trade across the entire Western Hemisphere – the creation of a sort of capitalist’s paradise. This free trade zone – dubbed the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) – quickly gained popularity among the leaders of most of the Western nations. Under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS), the Western nations proposed and began planning to implement the FTAA by 2005.

    The FTAA is modeled after NAFTA, which created an import duty-free zone across the North American continent. Economists reasoned that this ‘free trade’ zone would allow all three North American nations to prosper by allowing goods to move across borders more freely. And indeed, trade has exploded. Mexican exports to the United States have climbed from $40 billion in 1993 to $110 billion in 1999, while American exports to Mexico have gone from $42 billion to $87 billion. The astute reader will observe that the United States, in the intervening years, has built up a trade deficit to Mexico. In theory, this means, the Mexican economy is prospering, and Mexican people are doing better than ever before (also, of course, that the American economy is correspondingly losing cash). And in fact, Mexico has done quite well under NAFTA. Despite a crash in the value of the peso in 1995 which resulted in a drop in imports from the US, Mexico recovered, with exports increasing every year following the brief recession, and has now built a strong, export-based economy.

    Prevailing economic wisdom tells us that NAFTA was not responsible for Mexico’s recession, but it did help in the recovery. This is evident because Mexico climbed out of its 1995 recession faster than it did out of its 1985 recession. Such a climb, however, does not seem like it would be helped by NAFTA – which prevented Mexico from raising protective tariff barriers against US imports. Furthermore, the crash itself was due to the artificial valuation of the peso, thanks to the neoliberal government of Ernesto Zedillo, who, by keeping the peso’s value high, hoped to encourage passage of NAFTA and stimulate the influx of foreign capital.

    NAFTA also drove an increase in the number of maquiladora factories – foreign-owned operations that are tax-exempt on raw materials imports, so long as they produce for export. This, essentially, is a formula for cheap production in Mexico in return for lucrative export profits. Since export figures count the point of production as the exporter, a company like GM, which is the largest foreign employer in Mexico, can produce in Mexico, export to the United States, and send the profits to American shareholders, while the revenue is tabulated as a “Mexican export”.

    NAFTA, essentially, was an invitation for American manufacturers to bring their manufacturing south of the border and compete for cheap labor and weak or non-existent unions. A maquiladora is a perfect ‘finishing station,’ a way to dramatically decrease the cost of extremely labor-intensive, low-technology assembly operations. The workers employed are frequently young, untrained, often female, with little concept of labor organization and an extremely high turnover rate (10-15% a month). Aside from the very real lack of labor protections in Mexico, the threat of moving south of the border allows American businesses to erode labor bargaining power in America, and thus job security is now becoming a major priority of American labor, surpassing wages and pensions.

    Worse, environmental standards in Mexico fall far short of American standards. While this makes Mexican factories a much more attractive business prospect and encourages foreign investment, it also results in the further erosion of the Mexican environment. The United States-Mexico border has gathered an infamous reputation since the passage of NAFTA as the source of tremendous environmental pollution due to maquiladoras: smog in the atmosphere, raw sewage in the Rio Grande, toxins dumped in the desert.

    As Mexico goes, NAFTA is a sour deal – Mexican industry has suffered, losing out to foreign-owned business, real wages have gone down, labor conditions have suffered, and Mexico has seen little of the promised technology transfer that would transform its economy. Not to mention NAFTA has not had the soaring positive effect it was supposed to have on the American economy. The Clinton Administration, in light of the new trade deficit to Mexico, cheered meekly that NAFTA was having a “modest positive effect” on the American economy. Establishment analysts backpedaled on the loss of jobs due to NAFTA, claiming that there was no good way to assess loss of jobs, despite their pre-NAFTA fairy tales of tremendous job creation. Older economic analysis, however, has used trade deficits to measure job loss, by which NAFTA has resulted in the loss of 420,000 American jobs. Even the NAFA-TAA, the agency created to alleviate NAFTA-induced job loss problems, had 166,000 relief applicants, probably only a fraction of the true number.

    Pre-NAFTA proponents rationalized that the loss of jobs could be alleviated by further education and training. But labor organizers point out that American wages are 9 times what Mexican wages are, effectively making it impossible for American labor to compete, unless they somehow become nine times as productive as Mexicans.

    Despite the plethora of confusions surrounding NAFTA it has been dubbed a success, and the larger project of converting the entire Western Hemisphere into a free trade zone (presumably followed by the rest of the world) is being actively pursued. The OAS has already designated six working committees to coordinate the various aspects of the creation, as well as to create the treaty framework by which the member nations must abide.

    It must be said that the FTAA is being implemented in extremely undemocratic fashion – there has been absolutely no consultation with the public. In America, the public is vastly unaware of its existence, and no discussion of whether America should be involved exists. Presumably the economic managers feel that this is an issue out of the reach of the public’s grasp, and therefore there is no need to discuss it – or that dissenting voices suffer from a lack of education, and so any pretense of democracy is futile. Worse, however, is the colonial framework this imposes on the rest of the hemisphere, giving American business the ability to exploit the resources of two whole continents as they see fit. Given that most of the participants in this experiment suffer from an extremely poor standard of democracy (America included), no one should harbor the illusion that the FTAA is being pursued as a mandate of the people. If such a mandate exists at all, it is so far removed from the level of the government over which people have any control that it might as well be a dictatorial decree. The simple fact of lack of public consult should send up red flags, but the implementation of the organization itself is extremely disquieting.

    The FTAA is structured into three main components: trade ministers, who developed the overall work plan for the FTAA; nine negotiating groups, which are gathering information on the current status of trade in the Hemisphere; and vice ministers of trade, who help coordinate the working groups and make recommendations to the trade ministers.

    The nine negotiating groups are: market access; investment; services; government procurement; dispute settlement; agriculture; intellectual property rights; subsidies, antidumping and countervailing duties; and competition policy. The nature of these nine groups, and the lack of working groups on human rights, labor rights or the environment, should give some indication of the priorities of the FTAA.

    The FTAA organizers are also committed to working under the World Trade Organization (WTO), which gained notoriety in late 1999 when protesters disrupted the December 1st WTO ministerial in Seattle. Unlike the WTO, however, the FTAA claims to be committed to transparency in its process, to which end it has established a committee of government representatives on Civil Society, which will take suggestions from organizations, businesses, or otherwise interested parties throughout the Americas. The Committee, according to the FTAA’s website:

    “is given the responsibility to receive inputs from civil society, to analyze them and present the range of views to the FTAA Trade Ministers. The Trade Ministers stated: “We recognize and welcome the interests and concerns that different sectors of society have expressed in relation to the FTAA. Business and other sectors of production, labor, environmental and academic groups have been particularly active in this matter. We encourage these and other sectors of civil societies to present their views on trade matters in a constructive manner.”

    The balance of their attention, however, appears to be to those suggestions devoted to business matters, as they lump “gender equality, social justice, human rights, poverty, immigration and education” under the heading “social issues.” Ostensibly the voices of the people have thus far been heard – and dismissed. Similar OAS rhetoric on their commitment to social justice issues does not appear to have manifested in any policy decisions, or even a pretense of exploring the steps that must be taken to ensure a sound, just framework.

    Protest against this seeming eventuality has been building. While FTAA ministerials have gone mostly unheralded since the first OAS Miami summit of 1995, protest has picked up since the Seattle WTO actions. The OAS summit in Windsor, Canada, on June 6 of 2000, saw massive demonstrations and brutal police repression. The next Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec, Canada in April of 2001 will likely see similar levels of action. While it is unlikely that public mobilization will slow the tide of global capital, such action is the only forum of discussion open to the general populace. The OAS may march on, for the moment, nonplussed, but the countercurrent is growing stronger all the time.
  18. #38  
    When all else fails ... Flood with unsigned Op-Ed's.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    Ok im running late I must bail..Sling play later
    Enjoy

    More Free Trade: The Creation of the FTAA
    Isn't this the ramblings of a former MIT student back in 2001?

    Do you have any opinions of your own or do you plan to post more 50 page articles written by others to articulate your "independent view" that both sides are to blame?

    I had high hopes for you sling. But it seems to me you're heading down that slippery slope of trolling rather than conversing.
  20.    #40  
    There facts..you can look them up or make up your own ...what ever suits your fancy I'm getting giddy hehehe I must go or my girl is going to put my plasma TV outside..
    I'm sorry the dems had something to do with jobs disappearing due to there free trade policies but hey ...Knock yourselves out trying to find reasons they didn't .It's very entertaining to say the least

    Both party are to blame and there no getting around that fact
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions