Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Ill Winds of Free Trade
Elected officials are trailing voters on the critical issues of trade and health. Voters, including Republicans, increasingly oppose the current crop of trade agreements and also support raising taxes to pay for health care, according to recent polls.
It looks as if the public is prioritizing jobs and health benefits over buying cheap imports at Walmart. Trade agreements that dismantle the middle class sap all nations' political will, and ability to protect public health. Voters are catching on that all these issues are linked.
We understand that countries don't win or lose from deals like NAFTA. Rather, some large corporations win market share, while the majority of households lose income and services.
The corporate winners who now drive the global economy have unmoored themselves from the social contract, no longer relying on secure employment and rising standards of living to bolster consumer spending. The safety net to tide us over in troubled times has been abandoned. Weakened public institutions have also damaged health and the availability of health care.
Domestically, the shift in public opinion has not deterred unconditional cheerleading for the bottom line. The Bush administration's best idea for fiscal austerity at the moment is to slash publicly subsidized health care coverage for kids so that for-profit insurance companies can take a swipe at them.
The private sector has declined to enroll these uninsured young malingerers, to date, and probably won't start now. But this misguided stonewalling gives an ideological lift to the fable that market-driven health care is still a viable policy option.
Specific trade policies damage health and undermine health protections. Until this year, fast-track rules prevented Congress from amending trade agreements. Unhealthy trade policies written by corporations were virtually assured to be enacted.
· Drug companies have imposed trade rules that protect their rights to exorbitant profits while excluding many from needed life-saving drugs, by driving out competition from generics.
· The tobacco industry has stealthily used trade agreements to pry open export opportunities and to increase consumption of their lethal products.
· State, local and national measures to ban a carcinogenic gasoline additive, and to regulate internet gambling, have been delayed or overturned by powerful international trade tribunals with no expertise in health, or accountability to the U.S. court system.
· Licensing establishes both quality standards and fair treatment for health care professionals. But under the pending trade agreement with Korea, hospital chains could employ U.S. health care personnel in Korea, with no respect for local licensing rules. Other trade agreements would impose discriminatory treatment of immigrant Filipino nurses working in Japan.
What do all these policies have in common? Selected corporations benefit from policies they write, while the public is shut out. Through these agreements, corporate lobbyists are dictating public policy. Bringing public health voices to the table can provide balance to our trade policy and is long overdue. It's also time for elected officials to catch up with the public in supporting trade deals that boost our economic security, while expanding health care to all Americans.
Ellen R. Shaffer, PhD, MPH and Joe Brenner, MA, are Co-Directors of CPATH, the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health.



17 Comments so far
Show AllThe first step to solving this problem is to re-label "free trade". Neocon success has been enhanced by their careful selection of terms and phrases to win the hearts and minds of the people that will be harmed the most by the respective policy whether it be trade policy or other regulations. Until the rest of us match the neocons' word selection skills they will keep winning and we will keep losing.
"Free trade" is not free in any sense of the word. It is trade that is regulated in favor of special interest groups.
Re-label it special interest trade, anti-social trade, or any using other applicable terms and vote against candidates and incumbents who support it.
But if the public catches on, and recognizes that the leading candidates are allies of the corporate oligarchs in tearing up the social contract, and that the elections have become mere formalities to allow members of the public to delude themselves about their power and thereby lose their ability to resist, won't the oligarchs have to cancel the elections?
How about the possible term "rigged market" to replace, with accurate description, the lie in "free market"---using a word everybody (too well) understands these days from election-frauds to neocolonial trade deals? For when officials talk up "liberation," democracy, progress, etc. and suggest that "free markets" are the pre-conditions for them, they actually intend to go in and exploit countries and people exactly where and because they are vulnerable: they rig elections, meddle in politics and technologically overwhelm a culture before they begin to own it. In Greece (I know first hand over 30 years), the Euro-bankers are bribing and muscling their way in to make that whole country a tourist-stop; and right now every bit of money spent by visitors LEAVES the country, there is almost no intercultural contact, family businesses are drying up by the city-block, and Europeans are building golf courses in the middle of a semi-desert landscape already starved for water. All of this is enabled by banks giving out easy credit cards that entrap people with debt as they try to raise their status and participate in the flow of shit we call "mainstream popular culture"---with intimidations, bribes and more for once-honest local officials who hold the keys to owning everything (if you have the world-class capital for the takeover)....And when they find out this means having "Lucy Show" reruns on your cable-satellite-cellphone-PC, supported by a job shining shoes, they find out how "rigged" the "free market" is....
If in The People vs. The Oligarchy, only the grassroots can change things, only the Green Party is grassroots.
The words "free trade" are about as useful to describe a concept as the words "death tax". They sound simple and clear, but they're not.
Americans need to know what our trade agreements mean before we pass them. Ross Perot sounded the alarm 15 years ago, and we laughed at him for having a fast, high voice and for using charts and graphs. Oops.
F R E E T R A D E ?
Remember, Freedom IS Slavery!
So it's really Big Brother's SLAVE TRADE!
jack37,
Thank you for understanding the reality. 70 years ago, Cannibas was BANNED from the market and I have yet to hear those "free" market advocates actually call for a truly free market. If the market were free, small businesses would have a better shot at competing with big corporate motherfuckers such as Cargill, Walmart, McDonalds, Lockheed, Halliburton, Sun MIStrust, etc ...
It's about an economic system that the rulers can no longer control. It is not capitalist greed the drives the thing but the self-destructive nature of the capitalist system. Talk of capitalist greed only confuses the debate and ensures that we will not deal with the real problem.
Get real stingy with your money (if you still have any) folks. Don't trade it for crap. Stop buying their shit. Encourage people to help each other start connecting outside the present channels take back your country by taking control of your wallet.
Yep, grow your own, buy local made wool socks, sweaters, organic food.
Fill up 5 gallon containers at a spring, don't waste money on $1.50-$2 drinks
They don't support US, we don't support them.
You people don't understand that 'free trade' is the ne plus ultra of economists' contribution to human well being.!
Just here what the number one academic functionary, Columbia University's Jagdish Bhagwati, has to say, courtesy of his own Q&A site on the FInancial Times:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/cb0b204a-7683-11dc-ad83-0000779fd2ac.html
A political science academic writes (with total justification):
Your polemic attack on free trade sceptics seems to me to be based on the false presumption that it is the theories of economists that guide trade policy. Would trade policy not rather be the result of interests? Of course, politicians and their intellectual acolytes scurry to legitimise their deeds through some version of economic theory. ...
Bagwati replies: First, I must say that my "attack" is neither polemical nor ideological. If the media, which in the US is hardly trained in economics - I started the Media Program many years ago in Columbia University's School for International Affairs where we have students from areas including economics, political science, international law and regional specialisation, because I felt that our famous School of Journalism basically trained English literature students who then learnt how to write but not what to write - often hypes up non-existent dissent and builds up even half-informed people into star "dissidents", this has serious political consequences. ...
Second, it is incorrect to say that we are crusaders who, we know, were driven by faith in Christianity. Free traders, at least the sophisticated ones today, believe in it after much argumentation and empirical evidence. Their faith is based on reason.
In other words, you people know nothing. Shut up! Be good boys and girls and enrol in graduate school, where you will be trained out of reason based on faith. I should know - I have three degrees in the bullshit.
"free trade" is when a bear and a salmon sit down to discuss the luncheon menu.
Hillary is for free trade, as was Billary.
They introduced Nafta. Yet, the working classes have been completly duped again, as she is leading in the polls.
The rest of the candidates are simply a bunch
of nothings, brainwashed to accept the
"Free Trade" Bush deals. Time to expose the
V-airplane Hellicopter that the Bush owned
corporation, The Carlyle Group, has now
promoted and sold to the military to use in
Iraq. Where are the presidential candidates on this new for profit Iraq War? Are they all in the dark and ignorant of what is going on?
Time to expose the Arms Merchants..
Free trade is supported by both the Democrats and the Republicans. We don't have a party that represents the people anymore, both parties are only concerned with representing those who contribute the most money to their campaigns.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.
Abraham Lincoln
A fairly stunning revelation on "free trade" as it applies to Panana came out of the most recent Bill Moyers Journal.
Moyers: 'Now the watchdog group Tax Justice Network has released a study showing that most American goods already flow into Panama with low tariffs, and that Panama's manufacturing zone is already tax and tariff free. So what's the big deal? The big deal is Panama is a corporate tax haven. Companies can hide their books to avoid paying taxes - no questions asked; they don't even have to disclose who really owns the company. The watchdog group is asking Congress : "...what U.S. interests are being served by agreeing to a free trade agreement with a country that harbors tax cheats, refuses to cooperate with international tax authorities, and encourages u.s. corporations to move profits offshore?"'
There you have it in a nutshell: Free trade actually undermines the US viability as an economic entity.
This is a quote from the Tax Justice Network's homepage:
"In March 2005 we published a briefing paper called The Price of Offshore which estimated that the amount of funds held by individuals in offshore tax havens, is about 11.5 trillion US dollars. Using this estimate we calculated the worldwide tax revenue lost on the income from these assets at 255 billion dollars. Every year. This amount would more than plug the financing gap to achieve the United Nation's Millenium Development Goal of halving world poverty by 2015."
Or, maybe, this ammount would have been enough to line the obscene Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians the world over. Tax revenue that is not collected cannot be stolen by corrupt government officials. Or used to finance wars.