Free trade loses lustre

The Sunday Times ^ | February 29, 2004

[sarcasm]

WASHINGTON: Free trade is losing support in the US, in particular among high-income Americans, as more professionals feel threatened by job outsourcing to low-wage nations.

A recent poll by a Washington research group found falling support for free trade but the shift was most dramatic among those earning more than $US100,000 ($A130,000) a year.

The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found the percentage of those earning more than $US100,000 who actively supported free trade slid from 57 per cent in 1999 to 28 per cent in January 2004.

These results surprised even the researchers.

"It is rare in any case that any demographic slice drops 20 or 30 points on any issue," said research director Clay Ramsay.

"It certainly provides evidence for the theory that job insecurity is creeping up the income scale."

The poll showed more white-collar Americans joining the blue-collar outcry against globalisation and cast a cloud on the ability of the US to remain a leader in free trade. It also suggested protectionist talk would rise during the presidential election campaign.

But researchers said the results showed a majority of Americans endorsed free trade in principle, even if they believed it was being handled poorly by Washington.

"Feelings about international trade have gone from lukewarm, to luker," said PIPA director Steven Kull.

"Two-thirds say they support the reciprocal lowering of trade barriers but feel more needs to be done to mitigate the effects on workers and the environment." But the trend towards outsourcing of software and engineering jobs to countries such as India had led to a rethink of the benefits.

Senator Charles Schumer wrote recently in the New York Times that free trade had to be reconsidered in light of new economic realities, notably that much of the outsourcing was going to "a relatively few countries with abundant cheap labour".

"When American companies replace domestic employees with lower-cost foreign workers to sell more cheaply in home markets, it seems hard to argue this is the way free trade is supposed to work," Senator Schumer wrote.

[1rudeboy]

Underneath your "signature," and specifically underneath the "time of reply," is a wonderful feature that allows anyone to track replies backward. Try using it . . . then see if you can come-up with something constructive.

[sarcasm]

As usual, you refuse to explain why you have allied yourself with socialists.

[1rudeboy]

Now this is getting tedious. And what explanation do you have for "aligning" yourself with communists?

[dennisw]

This country is full of morons who have higher car payments than mortgage payments. Don't let $40,000 SUVs fool you into thinking their drivers can actually afford them.

 Wow is that ever true. There is plenty of newly minted, bank owned SUVs being driven around here in South Florida.

[hedgetrimmer]

Is it constructive for you to call people who oppose the communist nature of the FTAA communists?

Why does this "trade" agreement call for "solidarity"(a communist buzzword) ?

Why does this trade agreement call for equalization of wealth and infrastructure with a wealth redistribution program called 'structural convergence"? Is that not communism?

Why do you defend with every breath the phony "free trade" that these communistic treaties purport to create?

I have never seen you speak about these treaty specifics. Have you never read them? Do you blindly support them without even understanding the language they use, or do you support the implementation of a hemispheric communist government that will suborn the American people to other communist governments in this hemisphere, like Venezuela?

[dennisw]

Outsourcing is class warfare on the American middle class. Is part of the plan to Brazilianize America, to bring our living standards closer to our neighbors to the south as we get integrated into one huge North/South America free trade bloc.

[1rudeboy]

Interesting that you single me out for your "outrage," when the technique that bothers you so was introduced by sarcasm in his reply #9, and I've been making fun of it ever since.

[Lael]

I don't blame Bush for all those laws like FLMA --- for one Clinton signed that ---but the government very much controls, practically owns, the corporations.

Yeah, but this November, Clinton isn't on the ballot...Shrub is...and he is the one who took the Oath to see that the laws be "Faithfully Executed".

[hedgetrimmer]

You are a tireless supporter of "free trade". Please tell me how a "free trade" agreement can implement a plan to redistribute wealth? How can a "free trade" plan use language common to the communist party? Where in the FTAA, NFTA, the Summit of the Americas, and the OAS does it talk about liberty, God given rights, and the pursuit of happiness?

No American should ever sign off on any treaty that doesn't reinforce the guarantees of our Constitution. I am very curious to know in what sections and what articles of the aformentioned document these words exist.

[1rudeboy]

You are free to proceed. Is there any language you find particularly bothersome?

[FITZ]

They don't need to own shares --- they can dictate that employers give certain employees up to three months off and a whole lot more.

[jwalsh07]

Told you. Stevie Wonder saw that coming.

:-}

There are things government should do things governments shouldn't do and then there is the wisdom to know the difference.

[hedgetrimmer]

Please tell me how a "free trade" agreement can implement a plan to redistribute wealth?

[FITZ]

The communists oppose free trade.

China the biggest Communist country hardly opposes free trade ---- they're the biggest beneficiaries of free trade, without free trade that communist economy would have collapsed shortly after the Soviet Union's economy collapsed. Free trade keeps them going very nicely.

[1rudeboy]

Please tell me how a "free trade" agreement can implement a plan to redistribute wealth?

Please be specific.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "I'm just amused when fellow freepers end up on the same side as Chuckie."

I know what you mean. But this is not amusing.

The Chi-coms benefit and very much appreciate our version of "free" trade. I am equally surprised how many here in these threads end up on their side. That definitely is not amusing.

I consider the Chi-coms to be an enemy of America namely because that is how they often describe themselves -- and they have nukes pointed at us and our forces.

Though hardly communists nevertheless some here support their side of the "free" trade debates on these threads. Go figure.

[hedgetrimmer]

Hence, Structural Convergence Funds to correct the disparities in infrastructure and services, technological and innovative capacities, and human capital among the countries must be created in order to prevent a free trade area from becoming a space with some winners and many losers.

FTAA - TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE on theTHE TREATMENT OF SMALLER ECONOMIES AND THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT

[RaceBannon]

Chuckie is one of them responsible for it happening. He is just pandering for votes.

[Doohickey]

You see, answering that directly would bring us squarely back on topic. This is an uncomfortable place for proponents of free trade to be.

They can't demonstrate whether or not free trade works because it's just not being done anywhere.

India and China enact protectionist policies and and their government subsidizes their industry. I can grudgingly respect that - they're just looking out for number one. They know they can't compete on a level playing field.

Meanwhile, over here we engage in some masochistic bizarro form of free trade. We make it as difficult as possible to do business in this country while making it as easy as possible for foriegn concerts to enter our markets.

[1rudeboy]

You see, answering that directly would bring us squarely back on topic.

Well, then maybe you could help hedgetrimmer out? I'll be glad to contribute when the time comes.