A slow but perceptible sea-change seems to be under way in the American media, with even the network anchors now and then reading an item critical of the administration.

More important is what’s happening in the New York Times; wherever it goes, anchormen and the wire services appear emboldened to follow. Eventually, with sufficient repetition, a fact or two about the present plight of our country may yet seep into public consciousness. During the Clinton years, the Times shamed itself by pursuing the president for inconsequential matters and by praising him for such things as welfare “reform” and NAFTA. But now we are beginning to see in its coverage unmistakable signs of skepticism about the imperial dreams, economic program, and foreign policy of Clinton’s successor.

For instance on Sunday the paper ran an enormously long editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/opinion/20SUN1.html) — apparently the first in a series called “Harvesting Poverty” — about how free trade policies are driving the Philippines deeper into poverty (although the author points out that we have rigged international commerce so that it isn’t free at all). The second in the series, called “The Great Catfish War (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/opinion/22TUE1.html),” ran the day before yesterday. It’s about how we’re working the same cruel scam on Vietnamese fishermen. These long essays combine reporting with opinion in a way unusual for newspaper editorials. I commend them to you.

I recall plowing through the similarly long articles the Times used to run as Clinton was slipping NAFTA past us rubes. The treaty’s supporters, seldom challenged in the paper’s pages, argued that one of its principal aims was to raise wages abroad so they would one day match ours. This preposterous claim ran counter to common sense as well as to all previous human experience. But the only people to point that out were Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and “lefties” like me who were somewhat surprised at the company we suddenly found themselves keeping.

All of us were treated by the Times and the rest of the journalistic establishment as foolish children who had no business at the big table with the grown-ups. I don’t know about Perot and Buchanan, but I’m delighted to see the Times coming over to our little table and sitting down at last.

:m: Peace.

(Addendum: the same day as the catfish editorial/story, the Times ran an article (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/technology/22JOBS.html?hp) on IBM’s plans to shift three million white-collar jobs overseas by 2015. America’s blue-collar jobs were the first to go; now it’s the turn of our middle class. Only an economic moron — and there’s no shortage of those in the White House — could believe that a country composed only of millionaires and their servants could have a prosperous future.)

The treaty’s supporters, seldom challenged in the paper’s pages, argued that one of its principal aims was to raise wages abroad so they would one day match ours.Sometimes I think NAFTA was the moment the Dems officially rolled and followed Clinton to the flea market to whore themselves.

First off, I owe this and a couple other topics better consideration.

Secondly, I hope this puts to rest the idea that we in the United States are Capitalists. Equal wages around the world? That runs counter to modern capitalisit-policy conscience.

My father, who supported NAFTA despite wearing a dollar-bill on his jacket as a sign of support for Perot, would have laughed at the assertion that wages would equalize around the world without running him into the poorhouse.

He never explained quite how it worked in his mind, but since I can figure it out in seconds sitting here I'm sure it was superstitious.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Well I think that NAFTA has done some good and some bad. Overall the economy of the region have grown up to twice as large than pre-1994 levels. Now I freely admit of this wealth Billions went to the rich. But Mexico since NAFTA has experianced a polarization of it's economy. Where most of the economy is based on the Northern portion of the country. The Factories that make cheap goods due to cheap wages, and the oil industry is on the Gulf Coast, and Monterrey the "hi-tech" capital of Mexico. Meanwhile the south stagnates. But growth has hit Mexico better in the last 10 years than the last 25.

1975-2000: 0.9% growth
1990-2001: 1.5%

It all depends on how you see it, some get richer some get poorer.

"It all depends on how you see it, some get richer some get poorer."

Exactly. It helps that mexico gets a huge amount of inwards investment, thats where all the money is coming from. It certainly isnt coming from wages. Then there was the crash a few years ago, in which the banks got hol do flots of bits of mexico, because poeple couldnt afford ot pay them off, becasue of the amount of capital flight.

shoudlnt this go in the is globalisaiton good/ bad thread?

Then, all the free market dogma assume that the buyer and seller are of equal power. Try telling that to a farmer selling to a supermarket chain. The same goes for the contries, lack of democracy means that the rich and easily bought burecrats collude in keeping the country poor, by permitting all the usual stupidites to take place.

Anotehr exampel fo stupidity, the world bank and IMF have been encouraging poor countries to produce and sell commodities eg coffee. Now, they reccommended this in a lot of countries, and it worked, for all of 2 years, before the market was glutted and prices for coffee etc fell. Plus there is the all powerful middleman and transnational taking a big cut of hte money and screwing hte local farmer.


"Secondly, I hope this puts to rest the idea that we in the United States are Capitalists. Equal wages around the world? That runs counter to modern capitalisit-policy conscience."

No "true" capitalist woudl htink equal wages were a good idea, since where are you going to get motivation from. IN fact they likely think the greater hte disparity the better, since that spurs people on to more and more work. But I ask you all, are you getting more/ feeling better, with more work? Why is it that the number of women in the workplace has vastly increased, yet it seems poeple cant get by even on a dual income family?

As for Vietnam, it seems tha tin the long run, the uSA has won. Vietnam is now being modernised, never mind where the people who live ther e might want to go/ do.

This is one of hte key points of globalisaiton, it removes a peopels/ countries self determination. the politicians merely shrug and say "its not our fault, if we do that the economy will be doomed". And to some extent they are correct.
countries are majorly affected by decisions made by companies and far away on the otehr side of the world. We are all in this together now, no degrees of separation.

After a good start at providing jobs for Mexico, NAFTA will go down the tubes if the current Asian trend continues.

http://ntmain.utb.edu/labad/manufacturing_jobs_exiting_mexico.htm

Originally posted by guthrie
No "true" capitalist woudl htink equal wages were a good idea, since where are you going to get motivation from. IN fact they likely think the greater hte disparity the better, since that spurs people on to more and more work. History and theory both suggest that capitalism, properly conducted and underpinned with sound institutions which enjoy the support and trust of society, is an excellent tool for improving living standards and alleviating poverty. Unfortunately, this point is too often lost because vested interests abuse the system. Corporate capitalism, with heavily concentrated markets, is very different from the vision put forth by Adam Smith.

Greater integration into the global economy by way of free trade has proven to be a major factor in stimulating employment, economic growth and rising living standards - this is true for rich and poor countries alike. The GATT, now the WTO, played a major part in the post-war economic boom. Meanwhile, developing countries that opened their economies to free trade (Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia, and more recently, China, Poland, Mexico, etc) created jobs and eradicated poverty and unemployment at a much faster pace than similar economies which did not welcome trade (most of Latin America, South Asia and Africa and until recently, Eastern Europe).

Does that mean that all free trade is good for countries? No. The terms of free trade agreements must be carefully constructed and safety nets established to assist workers displaced by the reduction of trade barriers. Free trade deals also must be accompanied by measures to ensure that they do not facilitate increased degradation of environment and other public goods. This should be our goal, not railing against free trade in and of itself. We should work to encourage free trade, but also to ensure that the type of free trade that is implemented reflects our values and the values of society as a whole - not just the "values" of a few special interests and large corporations.

:m: Peace.

Ohh yeah all of the jobs are going to China, think about that. Mexican jobs are too expensive! But Mexico will always get generous American investment due to her location.

goofyfish

Yes there have been great strides in free trade, the real question is who benefits the most. Obviously the corporations (which will take over the nation state). But to see a new market economy gone wrong go look at Argentina. What makes me angry about Free Trade and the like is that the individual has no say in what will be built and where. "Free Trade" also pisses me off when the Euro and American have huge agri subsidies meanwhile farmers are dying else where. The 1st world has to realize she wants cheap goods then she better open up more.

NAFTA also eviscerates our enviormental protection laws with the provision that says - paraphrased - You gotta go by the parent companies home country's laws or it just ain't fair...

When faced with multimillion dollar lawsuits form these foreign owned polluting corporations our State and Federal government have backed down and let the corporations do as they want despite our laws.

The only way that NAFTA or even a globalized workforce can really benifit the people is if the corporations involved can be held accountable on a multinational or global basis. In Short, standardized global pay and working conditions must be established. US comporations doing business off shore typically hire "contractors" to run their factories thereby bypassing responsibility for working conditions. This practice must stop.

That doesn't mean that workers in China have to be paid the same as workers in any other country. Standarization need only mean that the corporations involved be required to pay a "living wage" and that basic working conditions be met.

The average worker in Mexico who gets hurt on the job , is simply out of a job. Many factories have no bathroom facilities. For instance workers in several factories outside of Nogales Mexico must urinate and deficate in a ditch that runs alongside the building. The ditch then runs past a shanty town where most of the Maquilldoras live. Since the shanty towns have no plumbing, their own additional human waste flows into the ditch. It then travels into the town and eventually through culverts into Nogales Arizona. I have seen these squalid conditions with my own eyes and if this is a world economy then I don't want it!!

Links like the one below can be found on nearly every corporation from A to Z. Some have yielded to the pressure of human rights groups and made improvements. Many simply move on to another country, as is testified to by the job exodus from mexico.

http://www.newint.org/issue308/rat.htm