Tags for This Article:

Government (3367)  Congress (3246)  Policy (1112)  International (1031)  Poverty (633)  Trade (492)  Trade Deficit (32)  Casey-Bob (24)  Fairness Doctrine (22)  Trade Mercosur Bloc (6) 

Populum Tag Cloud
       Control Panel
Fine tune your search to access content
Articles
Diaries Products
Events All
All time
Last 6 mos
Last month
Last week
Last 24 hrs
From:
Month  Day   Year

To:
Month  Day   Year
Alphabet
Popularity
Count ON
Count OFF
This Level
Sub-levels

 

 

 

Tag(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Add to My Group
August 25, 2007 at 06:29:44

The Case for Fair Trade

by Bacchus     Page 1 of 1 page(s)

www.opednews.com

 

Tell A Friend

View Ratings | Rate It  

 "Fair Trade" must be adopted as the trade policy of the U.S. for the sake of the survival of the U.S. working classes. If implemented correctly, it will result as well in an improvement of the living standard of workers throughout the world. This article will describe the deceptive and false premises used as an explanation of the need and justification for Globalization.The real motivation is an even more intensive exploitation of workers and resources worldwide. "Fair Trade" needs to  be accepted worldwide as the only suitable and equitable means of sustaining a high standard of living in the U.S., as well as an improvement in living standards worldwide. I will end the article with some of the changes in trade policy necessary to implement "Fair Trade".

  The theory of 'Globalization' is based upon the premise that there are three practices which are necessary to ensure optimal worldwide trade. They consist of 'free trade(the trading of goods and services with no duties, quotas, or other hindrances), free flow of capital, and the free flow of labor. The following paragraphs consists of a history of the evolution of "Globalization" and a description of the consequences to the working classes in the U.S. and overseas as these practices are implemented.

  Our "new"system of world trade, called "Globalization" is nothing more than "old wine in new bottles". The world has practiced "free trade" on and off for over 200 years starting with Great Britain's industrialization and the desire for uninhibited trade during this period. The British were at least astute enough to pursue it only at the times when they were the world's premiere trading nation. The U.S. started promoting it in 1944 under GATT, when the U.S. itself had become the worlds premier trading nation. But now, when  it has become the worlds least competitive trading nation, it still persists in pursuing this practice. The continuation by the U.S. of "free trade"will eventually result in the drain of all major assets from U.S.(including ultimately the money supply), and the pauperization of its working classes. 

  The second most fundamental practice which constitutes Globalization, namely the free flow of capital, has likewise been an issue during this same period. It was a concomitant to free trade necessary to facilitate it. It was, and still is, the method of financing trade deficits caused by free trade policies. This had resulted in the stripping of assets from those foreign nations who were unable to compete with the high-tech mechanized production of the Western developed economies and were forced to relinquish assets to finance their trade. This group includes the U.S. now that it too cannot compete with low-cost foreign producers.

   The financial problems of LDCs of today are the result of this takeover of assets. It had become clear that the advanced manufacturing countries would soon own all the natural resources of the LDCs which essentially represented the only inheritance of future generations. Some of the governments of these LDCs attempted to protect these assets by refusing foreign ownership of their most valuable properties, mainly those producing petroleum and minerals. Ultimately however, as these few assets were obtained by foreigners, these countries have had to borrow money from the west in order to further participate in world trade .

    The flow of profits from foreign-owned companies, as well as the proceeds from foreign debts, have resulted in a situation where almost all export earnings of these countries are consumed by these payments. The workers in export-oriented industries are simply working to support the citizens of other countries. That is the reason that the meetings of the WTO and IMF are accompanied by mass demonstrations whenever they convene around the world. These capital flows, if uncoordinated and uncontrolled, invariably lead to currency crises causing the ruination of the value of the currencies and the debasement of living standards of the citizens involved. The U.S. dollar will ultimately suffer this same fate, leading to a fall in the living standard in the U.S. as well as a decline in the prestige and power of the government.

   The last 'necessary' practice of Globalization is that of the "free movement of labor". Its sole intent is to create a pretense of equality and balance  to these other (unfair)practices, created  for the "benefit" of the working classes( who are in reality the victims of the scheme). The workers are told they can, or must, move to those countries where the work is currently being done if they want to work in those industries in which they have had their training and experience. Otherwise, they will have to work in the "service industries" which should, in the future, be called "servant industries" because they will eventually mainly consists of people working as servants to the rich.

   In the first place, this 'free movement of labor' is a flagrant and serious betrayal of the working classes by the U.S. government in that it is in violation of the spirit and intent of all law relating to the governments responsibility to provide suitable and maximum employment for American workers, enacted over the past century. It is in violation of the Fair Employment Act of 1941, the Employment Act of 1946, and of the spirit of numerous legislation in the sixties and seventies including the Civil Rights Bill of 1965. These Acts all stipulated that the government had the responsibility to support in every way employment of U.S. citizens. These laws have been flagrantly abused, and Globalization has completely invalidated them.

 As a matter of practicality, even if a U.S. worker could work overseas, somewhat like many Filipinos,Turkish, and South Koreans workers do currently, leaving their families behind to live off their foreign remittances, how could these remittances possibly pay for American workers normal current outlays such as for mortgages payments, health care expenses, and the provision of a college fund for their children? Overseas workers salaries are, for the most part, at best $4 or $5 per hour, which allow these workers, if they share quarters at the work site with 5 or 10 other foreign workers, to remit to their families perhaps $400 or $500 per month. This could hardly cover the expenses of an American family stateside. The only way to successfully effect this 'free movement of labor'would be for the worker, along with his entire family, to move overseas. This is absolutely the only way for the 'free movement of labor'to succeed considering the current worldwide wage scales. 

   The U.S. government has, in effect, suggested to the American worker to 'go east young man' with an added suggestion to 'don't bother to stop at the Atlantic' because there really aren't any jobs available for him here in the U.S. Implementing a international minimum wage would go a long way to avoid this brazen exploitation of labor and provide a level playing field for American workers. An international minimum wage would obviate the need for many workers worldwide to leave their families and attempt to acquire entry into the Western high-wage countries, as well as solve many of the recipient countries immigration problems.

   Just as a side issue, the U.S. government has done absolutely nothing to facilitate the securing of work overseas by U.S. workers, even if they had the the desire and finances to do so. While tons of foreign workers in certain select professions are flooding into the U.S., their counterparts from the U.S. are denied access to jobs overseas in the same countries whose citizens are acquiring work here. Their governments, or corporations(with the acquiescence of their governments) routinely prevent  Americans from working there because they are intent on preserving the jobs for their own citizens. Of courser, that is exactly what every government should be doing. The U.S. government, at the least, should be requiring reciprocity from these foreign governments. They are not making any attempt to do so. 

   A "Fair Trade" program can be effected by three policy changes. First, 'free trade'should be modified to allow a true float of the dollar and the establishment of an international minimum wage rate. This will prevent wage rate discrepancies to develop and the tendency of all production work to go to the 'lowest bidder'( the most poverty stricken and beaten down). Secondly, the free flow of capital should be regulated to prevent capital flight from destroying the money supplies of countries suffering from chronic trade deficits. For the LDCs in particular, this has caused an unwarranted and unfair drop in an already ultra-low prevailing wage rate. Thirdly, the free movement of labor should be limited to only those cases where trained workers are unavailable(not just highly paid!), and immigration policies should ensure this. All workers should have the opportunity to pursue their chosen profession in a fair competitive environment within their own country.

    It is time to throw out a government that has consistently ignored the interests of its own citizens. The Congress,as a body, must take responsibility for the poor treatment and betrayal of its working classes. If the Congress continues on this course the country will be ruined. My intention is to encourage the removal from office of all current members of Congress as a warning to future officeholders that the public will hold them accountable and have the power to do so. This can only be accomplished in the short run via the ballot, truly the sole democratic means currently available. I will be submitting a further article on this site suggesting how this can be done.

 

Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people:
Promote Fair Trade before it`s too late

Click here to see the most recent messages sent to congressional reps and local newspapers

uncensoredops.blogspot.com

Richard Backus is a journalist specializing in economics and politics.He has degrees in physics and engineering, and considerable experience in computer systems development. He is single, a good bridge player, and a lousy but enthusiastic tennis player.

Contact Author
Contact Editor
View Other Articles by Author

 

Bookmark this page: (what's this?)

NETSCAPE      DIGG THIS      Add This Page to Mr Wong!           NEWSVINE      DEl.ICIO.US      Looksmart Furl      My Web      Tag!RawSugar      Blink List     (More...)
Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 comments

Robert Chapman is greatly interested in developing political awareness among as many people as possible.
Robert ChapmanRobert Chapman is greatly interested in developing political awareness among as many people as possible.

The Case for Fair Trade

I disagree strongly with Bacchus contention that globalization is leading to the pauperization of the working classes.

China has lifted 400,000,000 people out of poverty.

No other society has accomplished an economic miracle of this magnitude.

The fact of the matter is that the EU, North America and Japan will never have the growth rates that we will see in the LDCs if globalization proceeds.

This is simply because consumers in these countries already have most of what they need and only buy new things to replace worn out or out of date items.

In the LDCs people still buy the basic items like phones, toasters, irons and furniture.

To continue the imperial system of manufacturing in Europe and America and shipping to the rest of the world while forbidding them from developing their own economies is untenable.

If the LDCs are to be allowed to supply their own wants, the factories will be built there, because that is where the markets are.

The vastly higher revenues of the companies serving these markets will assure a competitive advantage for these companies that factories operating solely in developed countries cannot match.

Americans are faced with a stark choice: support policies that make us ECONOMICALLY competitive at the global level or try to bolster uncompetitive industries.

Either way the LDCs will grow, either way our manufacturing work force will shrink.

We can make new jobs or we can try to protect the jobs people are working now.

by Robert Chapman (28 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 556 comments) on Saturday, August 25, 2007 at 4:32:16 PM
 


Richard Backus is a journalist specializing in economics and politics.He has degrees in physics and engineering, and considerable experience in computer systems development. He is single, a good bridge player, and a lousy but enthusiastic tennis player.
BacchusRichard Backus is a journalist specializing in economics and politics.He has degrees in physics and engineering, and considerable experience in computer systems development. He is single, a good bridge player, and a lousy but enthusiastic tennis player.

Thanks for your comment Robert

  I appreciate your interest in the welfare of foreign workers. We all should have that in mind. Certainly globalization has been responsible for this, but at a cost to American workers. But my suggestion of an international minimum wage will accomplish not only an improvement in living conditions for the workers of the LDCs, but will level the playing field for workers in the U.S., for whom we as citizens should be equally concerned. As to which market is really being served by the movement of production overseas, over 80 percent of the manufacturing goods produced in China,for example, is being shipped overseas(with ownership of these producers predominantly foreign). The chinese public, by having to accept such low wages, can hardly purchase its own products. An international minimum wage would remedy this.

by Bacchus (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 2:27:38 PM
 


I am a Social Democrat and a former congressional candidate who lives in Columbia, SC. I'm a fairly accomplished programmer (in LabView) who has done much work with statistical distributions in the electronics and fiber optics industries.
Mark WhittingtonI am a Social Democrat and a former congressional candidate who lives in Columbia, SC. I'm a fairly accomplished programmer (in LabView) who has done much work with statistical distributions in the electronics and fiber optics industries.

I agree with Mr. Bacchus

I agree with Mr. Bacchus. I’ve seen first hand the incredible damage done by Globalization to the people where I live. That’s the problem: there are no policies that can make America competitive considering the competitive advantage due to the virtual enslavement of Chinese and other third world workers. We’re not just talking about manufacturing here either: increasingly, we’re no longer competitive in a host of industries. My own community looks more like a third world country every day. China was a totalitarian society before the adoption of capitalism, and it is still an authoritarian society to this day. America is starting to look like China, rather than the other way around.

 

Not so long ago, I wrote a piece about a model economy that accurately predicts wealth/market capitalization distributions using free market capitalism-and it isn’t pretty. Using new stochastic programming techniques, it’s possible to demonstrate how capitalism really works. Capitalism takes the wealth generated by a society and redistributes it to a tiny minority. For example, the model predicts the long-term distribution of wealth to be as follows in a stable economy:

  • The top 1% will own 35% of the wealth                       
  • The top 5% will own 64% of the wealth                       
  • The top 10% will own 75% of the wealth                       
  • The top 20% will own 84% of the wealth                       
  • The bottom 60% will own 5% of the wealth                       
  • The bottom 40% will own .013% of the wealth 

Capitalism also ensures that wealth remains mostly static because it reduces risk to investors, while putting workers into a chaotic free for all; where workers inevitably lose.

 

Now, if you take capitalism and enforce it on a global scale, then you get the disaster that we’ve seen over the past thirty years.

 

Remember back when it was normal for a man to get a job a few years out of high school and for him to be able to support a wife, kids, a house, a car, and still be able to save 5% a year. I do. What’s the difference from today? Duh (as my kid would say): free trade and Globalization, of course (oh yeah, and regressive taxation too).

 

My wife and I continually struggle because my jobs are continually being outsourced. I have to get a job every two years or so because the companies that I work for either leave the country, are bought out and downsized, or because the corporations fire workers in lieu of market conditions (last hired-first fired). So, I spend two or three months looking for a new job without pay (SC has it rigged to where it is nearly impossible to collect unemployment: thanks Chamber of Commerce!). Consequently, we have to use credit cards to make up the difference, and we go into more debt, and the cycle never stops. This cycle is the norm for most Gen X American workers today.

 

 I often compare my own situation to my dad’s. He had a good paying union job for life and he knew it. He made plenty to support our family alone, yet my mother worked just to get ahead. My wife and I have far more education than our parents did, yet our financial situation is much worse. We live paycheck to paycheck; they had substantial assets. We live in a tiny condo; they owned multiple houses and other property. We live in a country where the top 1% owns 35% of the wealth; they lived in a country where the top 1% owned 19% of the wealth. We’re being crushed by Globalization; they prospered under the New Deal.

by Mark Whittington (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 22 comments) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 12:13:42 AM
 


Richard Backus is a journalist specializing in economics and politics.He has degrees in physics and engineering, and considerable experience in computer systems development. He is single, a good bridge player, and a lousy but enthusiastic tennis player.
BacchusRichard Backus is a journalist specializing in economics and politics.He has degrees in physics and engineering, and considerable experience in computer systems development. He is single, a good bridge player, and a lousy but enthusiastic tennis player.

Congress must act to save the U.S. working class

   Most of the older work force in America has similar stories to tell. As this injustice continues, as it will if nothing is done to stop it, the newer workers won't even have any positive stories like your success in getting a job after losing one. Usually losing any job after age 40(and perhaps even earlier) is a prelude to penury. So you must have some exceptional talents, and certainly should be commended for your efforts. The govenment has made it extremely difficult to function under Globalization and needs to be chastised to get it to pay attention to the mess it has created. My next article will be titled something like 'How to win an election'designed to suggest how U.S. citizens can force Congress to pay attention to the interests of the working classes. I hope you will read and enjoy it.

by Bacchus (16 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments) on Sunday, August 26, 2007 at 2:49:48 PM
 

 

4 comments

 

Tell A Friend

 


Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2008

Blog Ads

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Articles
in the Last 2 Days
(by Recommend Emails)

Keith Olbermann Broke Up With Me! by Shannyn Moore

Children dying in Haiti, victims of food crisis exacerbated by four devastating tropical storms Posted by Stephen Fox

Study Confirms Genetically Modified Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety Posted by sadelaine

Surviving an Economic Crash: Resources and Tips by Kathryn Smith

Home Depot Founder: Retailers Who Don't Support GOP "Should Be Shot" Posted by Joan Brunwasser

A Turkey By Any Other Name--Is Still the Governor of Alaska by Brasch

Congress Opposes Bush Pardons by David Swanson

Fate of Lakotahs Highlights America's Failed Native American Policies by Stephen Lendman

Obama may choose Monsanto's GE-nightmare over an organic human vision by Linn Cohen-Cole

The Coming of the Second Great Depression? Posted by Nathan White

Go To Top 50 Most Popular