Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiObama Drinks Friedman’s Kool-Aid
Our economy has gone into the toilet over the past 30 years, and President Obama and his advisors think "free trade" is the solution. Like Bill Clinton and both George Bush's, he's so enamored of it he's even recommending it to poor African nations.
Yet "free trade" is a guaranteed ticket to the poorhouse for any nation, and the evidence is overwhelming. The concept was introduced, in fact, by Henry VII, as something that England should encourage other countries to do while it maintained protectionism; a process known as the 1485 Tudor Plan that led to the rapid industrialization of England and the deeper impoverishment of its trading "partners."
With no evident irony or understanding of how South Korea went about becoming a modern economic powerhouse, on Friday, July 10, 2009, President Obama lectured the countries of Africa from Ghana, where he was visiting. As The New York Times noted ("Obama Wins More Food Aid but Presses African Nations on Corruption" by Peter Baker and Rachel Donadio) on July 11:
"Mr. Obama said that when his father came to the United States, his home country of Kenya had an economy as large as that of South Korea per capita. Today, he noted, Kenya remains impoverished and politically unstable, while South Korea has become an economic powerhouse."
In
the same day's newspaper, The New York Times' lead editorial, titled "Tangled
Trade Talks," repeated the essence of the mantra of its confused op-ed writer,
Tom Friedman, that so-called "free trade" is the solution to a nation's
economic ills.
"There
are few things that could do more damage the to already battered global economy
than an old-fashioned trade war," the Times wrote. "So we have been increasingly worried by the protectionist
rhetoric and policies being espoused by politicians across the globe and in
this country."
But
South Korea did not become an "economic powerhouse" as a result of "free
trade." Indeed, the exact opposite
is the case.
South Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang's book Bad Samaritans describes South Korea's economic ascent in detail. In 1961, South Korea was as poor as Kenya, with an $82 per capita annual income and many obstacles to economic strength. The country's main exports were primary commodities such as tungsten, fish, and human hair for wigs.
Interestingly, some of its largest modern-day producers of technology began by producing these basic commodities. Samsung, for example, started out exporting fish, fruits and vegetables. But by throwing out "free trade" and embracing "protectionism" during the 1960s, in roughly 50 years South Korea managed to do what it took the United States 100 years and Britain 150 years to do.
This economic development of South Korea started following a military coup in 1961, where General Park Chung-Hee began South Korea's economic assent by implementing short-term plans for economic development. He instituted the Heavy and Chemical Industrialization program, and South Korea's first steel mill and modern shipyard went into production. In addition, South Korea began producing its own cars. Electronics, machinery, chemicals plants soon followed, all sponsored or subsidized by the government.
Between 1972 and 1979 the per capita income grew over 5 times. In addition, new protectionist slogans were adopted by South Korean citizens. For example, it was viewed as civic duty to report anyone caught smoking foreign cigarettes.
All money made from exports went into developing industry. South Korea enacted import bans, high tariffs and excise taxes.
In the 80's South Korea was still far from the industrialized west but it had built a solid middle class. South Korea's transformation was as if, in 40 years, to quote Chang, "Haiti had turned into Switzerland."
This transformation was accomplished through protecting fledgling industries with high tariffs and subsides, and only opening itself to global completion slowly and when ready. In addition, the government ran many of the larger industries, although private industry was allowed.
Private industry, when allowed, was monitored carefully and taken over by the state if found to be inefficient.
The government ran or tightly regulated the banks and therefore the credit. It controlled foreign exchange and used its currency reserves to import machinery and industrial imports.
On the other hand the government tightly controlled foreign investment in South Korea, and largely ignored enforcement of foreign patent laws. Korea focused on exporting basic goods to fuel and protect its ‘high-tech' industries with tariffs and subsides.
Had South Korea adopted the "free trade" policies espoused by Friedman and The New York Times, it would still be exporting fish and still have a per-capita income like Kenya's.
Another great example of this is Toyota's success with their luxury car the Lexus. Toyota has been touted by free traders as a clear example of why free trade works, mostly because of the widely cited example outlined in Thomas Freidman's book The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
But again, at a closer look, the reality is the opposite of what Friedman naively portrays in his book. In fact, Japan subsidized Toyota not only in its development but even after if failed terribly in the American markets in the late 1950's. In addition, early in Toyota's development, Japan kicked out foreign competitors like GM.
Thus, because the Japanese government financed Toyota at a loss (for roughly 20 years), built high tariff and other barriers to competitive imports, and initially subsidized exports, auto manufacturing was able to get a strong foothold and we now think of Japanese exports being synonymous with automobiles.
For about 200 years, we understood this in the United States. Had the fathers of the United States like Lincoln, Washington, Jackson or Grant applied for IMF loans, they would have been denied: All of them believed in high tariffs and a heavy control of foreign investment, and considered "free trade" to be absurd.
In 1791, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton submitted his Report on the Subject of Manufactures to the US Congress. In it he outlined the need for our government to subsidize new industries and subsequently protect them from the international markets until they become globally competitive.
Additionally,
he proposed a roadmap for American industrial development. These steps included protective tariffs
on imports, import bans, subsides, export bans on selected materials, and the
development of product standards.
It
was this policy, followed largely for most of the history of our country with
average tariffs through most of the 19th and 20th
centuries of around 40 percent, which built our American industry. All three times we radically dropped
tariffs – for 3 years in 1857, for nine years in 1913 (just down to 25%), and
in 1987 – what followed were economic disasters, particularly for small
American manufacturers.
Since Reagan blew out our tariffs in the 1980s (and Clinton kicked the door totally open with GATT, NAFTA, and the WTO), our average tariffs are now around 2-4 percent. And the predictable result has been the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing capacity to those countries that do protect their industries through high import tariffs but allow exports on the cheap – particularly China and South Korea.
If President Obama and our Congress don't soon learn the lessons Alexander Hamilton taught us in 1791, which he learned from Henry VII and were borrowed by Japan, South Korea, and China, we'll continue to see American industry slowly die. And with it will go the American middle class.
121 Comments so far
Show AllHistorical facts sometimes fly in the face of conventional wisdom.
The civil war was fought over protectionism as much as slavery.
The north had the most people and the most political power so they imposed high tariffs on foreign goods to fuel demand in the U.S. for goods from factories in the north.
The south wanted cheap imports from the British Empire and free trade.
The north won the civil war and the U.S. became the largest industrial economy on earth, and Great Britain a socialist shadow of it's former self.
Today China is becoming the industrial power house of the world with wealth from the U.S. transferred in the name of free trade.
Sad, but true.
Ross Perot warned us, raise the hood and look under it...
Bubba Clinton sold out the working classes and the ladies
are still in love with him. Who will tell them that Bubba
the ladies man, is now raking in money by the millions from those third world countries who are benefitting from the loss
of our industrial base. During WWII Bubba and George Bush
whould have been tried for Treason. If WWIII should break out
we would have to beg China for our industrial base, as ours
has been outsourced to China.
Here Thom Hartmann has put his finger - his words - on a crucial but trifled fact in our economy: THE MARKET IS NEVER FREE.
There are always contexts, constraints and framework to a market. No matter how "free" the exchanges purports to be, any existing conditions favors the strongest in any transaction. Which is why the collective of us market-users need to set equalizing terms to counter exploitation by the strongest of the less well positioned.
Yet equal power over the transaction - with the freedom to accept or refuse it - is essential for the good functioning of the market for ALL involved.
In units the size of nation-states, planning for societal goals needs to be openly made and allowed. Removing tariffs and economic protections stops a nation's specific targets being reached. Thus no "social mobility" - industrializing development - will occur between countries. The rich of the USA (and its "allies") stay richest. Little or no change in market-dominance happens that way. And the inventors of the "free market"-illusion are the ones benefitting from this "freedom" - the freedom to exploit.
Pls note: "free" is an adjective or adverb, but is confounded and used as a noun - "a freedom" - as if it has physical existence. A "free marketplace" is a deceptively confused idea - not a place anywhere.
The population of the USA (as different from the USA-rich) has fallen into a deception meant for other countries. But the finance-rich (as opposed to merely production-rich) keep skimming profits. None of their worry if a country or two, or many more, experience increased suffering. Even the USA isn't exempt from this exploitation into suffering.
Most citizens of the USA through consumption-patterns (70 % of the US economy), exist in the strange double role of being both exploiters and exploited. This ambiguity confuses USAns and the world, while the trans-national exploiters calmly keep harvesting the riches.
Capitalism is an engine with a missing or unconscious driver. And the inventors who understood it best all died a long time ago. Now conditions and roadmaps have changed, but capitalism isn't updated to assist with our immediately relevant goals and needs: global population-control, poverty-removal, climate stabilisation, pollution clean-up, collectively acceptable range of equality/difference, peace.
We need to rein in and collectively get hold of the wheel of the engine of capitalism, that grand invention. That of course includes collective control of the creation of money (abolishing or nationalizing the Federal Reserve).
A well-functioning economic system also includes abolishing Compound Interest and the "never-enough-money-to-pay-the-total-debt-and-thus-bankruptcy-creating" function of compound interest. Compound interest (typically tripling a debt in around 15 years) bankrupts people as well as whole societies, due to a system people and societies themselves implement and hope (but many fail) to profit from.
Due to the inherent bankruptcy-creating properties of compound interest, the hidden question in capitalism is always: Who's going to be the fall guy? - With compound interest, someone always will be.
That's the great flaw of current capitalism: it produces losers for every "winner". But sustainable affluence is achievable for humanity as a group taking care of its own - without starvation to scare us into doing the necessary chores. We only need to get as smart collectively as we are individually.
Many are capitalism's "fall people": 30,000 die a day from preventable starvation. That's 10 million every year (since the 1970'ies), 1 every 3 seconds.
The sad fact is, 10 megadeaths a year are replaceable from the 80 million more people every year. (So the limit to growth equals population-increase - and that's a very scary thought: 80 million starvation-deaths a year before the functioning of capitalism is threatened. Starvation can increase 8 times, to a quarter million a day, before economic growth stops. This means the economic system, with all its flaws and crises, is functioning well within its limits). 30,000 dead still leaves some 200,000 more workers born every day, 3 every second, eager to join the trade-system (capitalism) to survive. How are you today?
Sioux Rose
ULLERN: Profound and most-excellent post. Thank you for teaching me something.
Just the picture of Thomas "they hate us because of our freedoms" Friedman as a drug-polluted, dark-glasses wearing, insanity-babbling incarnation of Jim Jones made the article worth reading.
Barack Obama as the gullible groupie-dupe under the sway of a cabal of idolatrous Satanic monsters will become more and more believable in the coming months as the lethargy of "business as usual" starts to really take a toll on the lives of the most vulnerable and least responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves.
Poet
This analysis only serves to illustrate that the far-left's policy of localism is where it's at. So as individuals participate in their local economies, simply by demanding local production, they practice the same policy as the "Asian Tigers" which along with their European counterparts produce the bulk of world output with strong fundamentals, while the USA teeters on the brink of collapse.
Funny to see Thom Hartmann accuse Obama of drinking Friedman’s Kool-Aid, when Thom Hartmann and other corrupt Air-America phonies drank Obama's Kool-Aid for two years before the election, knowing fully well from his voting record that he was a swindler. They defended Obama tooth and nails, first against Hillary, then against McCain.
Now Thom Hartmann's trying to save face, too little too late, of course. Media prostitutes like Hartmann are part of the problem.
Nah, it's not Thom Hartmann that is part of the problem, but you yourself are part of the problem, Obusha. First things first. You want to fly before you have wings, and that is a stupid mistake if you jump off a cliff. First, get rid of the Republiklan Party and its imps in Congress, deeply entrenched in the massive selfish classes of America, and that covers way, way more people/voters than CD does. That is an Augean Stables job, and is in no way even started yet. Second, get rid of the Republiklan Party and its imps in Congress. See how big the job is? Third, get rid of the Republiklan Party and its imps in Congress...
Fourth, get rid of the right-wing media, the Goebbels/Rove/Luntz/Limbaugh/Hannity/et al matrix of talking-points-talking heads/corporate shills... despite the billions of dollars backing them. Another big job not even begun.
Now, finally, you can start on criticizing Obama and the entrenched Democrats, and not be simply a sapper and divider of the feeble milquetoast powers available to even the mildly-left, and an enabler of the empowerment of the forces of the right. See... one step at a time.
Obama, who is only one guy after all, must work with the Crap he has on hand, and that includes first and foremost the goddamned Bush Legacy (which the Neo-Con Right is feverishly trying to re-write as the Obama Legacy), the die-hard Reagan cultists, the country-western neo-confederates, the rabid fundamentalist christians/jews, the libertarian Ayn Randers and their sleepers in the Federal Reserve, those won't-go-home power-mongers the Clintons, the corporate cash-suppliers at the DLC, the Southern-Fried BlueDogTraitors, the longtime professional political triangulators, the better-get-results paid-lobbyist army, the better-dead-than-red-haters of commie-socialism, the we-decide-what-you-can-and-cannot-do bean-counters, the bitterly-divided House, the bitterly-divided Senate, the Bush-Crime-Family-packed Supreme Court, the fifty-medal-lifetime-service-generals, the rich media-control barons, the temptations of power, the out-of-your-control schedule, the... you get the point. YOU yourself would probably do far, far worse than Obama in such a setting.
So don't expect miracles, don't just criticize, go out and take over the Demorats, like the far-right money-luvin' good-ol'-boys did to the Republiklans, or form your own party, BUT A REAL PARTY, not a vanity sham party, like Nader, whom I admire even though I realize he doesn't really want to be elected. Or simply keep urging Obama and your congresspeople to keep a progressive path, and tell them what that path is. That is fair. And know your enemy, and it is not Obama. Yet.
As far as Thom Hartmann, he is one of the very intelligent and perceptive people who have greatly aided progress in America. I would be happy if he were nominated for President, as I would be happy to vote for many, many other great American progressives... when they had any chance to beat the corporatist/capitalist party. Otherwise, I will vote merely to AVOID a catastrophe, and I believe Thom Hartmann made that calculation himself in his support for Obama.
And believe me, no matter how bad you think Obama is, I GUARANTEE you would have been hankering for an Obama after a few months of the Reign of President Daddy Warbucks McInsane and his Wicked Bitch of the North. And throughout their reign, the Republiklans would gleefully be rubbing your nose in their feces and claiming a "mandate to do anything they want to do" from the 'people.' People like you.
FVHorn, you do a good job of describing the theory of least-worst, strategic voting --- in other words, the rationale for voting for a Democrat, any Democrat, instead of a third-party, progressive candidate.
But, you are wrong twice. First, your theory has already proven fatally flawed. Obama is not our "one guy," leading the charge against the entrenched oligarchs and their pawns in Congress. Quite the opposite. He has chosen -- as President, with a Democratic Congress and a public mandate -- to perpetuate all the old Bush policies of cowboy militarism, trickle-down economics, government secrecy, for-profit health insurance, environmental degradation, toxic food, globalism and slave labor, etc. Thanks to Obama, Bush's policies now have the stamp of the Democratic Party. (The only difference I see between Obama and the Republicans is the stimulus package, and a few -- very few -- appointments.)
Second, you are wrong in implying that the least-worst, strategic voting theory applies only to Obama and not the other mainstream Democrat in the race, Hillary Clinton, whom you dismiss with the sexist term "the Clintons." She would have been the Democratic candidate if not for Obama's lies and race-baiting in the primary campaign, and she would have defeated the Republicans in the general election.
Intelligent people who compared Hillary Clinton's record in the Senate to Obama's knew all along that her politics and agenda were far to the left of his. In fact, we saw Obama as a Republican in Democrat's clothing. That analysis is now confirmed by his administration's perpetuation of George Bush's policies.
Sioux Rose
FV HORN: Love your 4th paragraph! Tom Wolfe has NOTHING on you! I do feel you go too lightly on Obama given he has in fact rubber-stamped the Bush agenda and given it his imprimatur. Should Rich M visit the forum, he could explain far better than I could the degree to which the "personality show" lends illusion to the perception that there really are 2 parties. Sure McCain is borderline militarily-insane and Sarah Palin a sheltered racist fool, but would the policies of state have been substantially different under that duo? From where I sit, nothing substantive has altered since Obama took the supposed wheel to theoretically navigate our ship of state. I do feel you identified with brilliant acumen the factors he'd be up against if indeed he had the will to alter the scenario that's taken the nation to the cusp of ruin. There is no evidence he has the will or desire to shift directions.
Nice try, but your post reads like a long, desperate list of apologies and excuses for Obama. As for getting rid of Republicans, the voters did just that in the last 2 election cycles. Democrats now control everything, they have 60 senators, the White House, the House. Still, Wall Street bailouts, illegal wars, genocide, torture and all Bush & Cheney policies are not only being kept by Democrats, they're being enhanced.
You and corrupt journalists like Hartmann need a new bogeyman other than Republicans, pal, it doesn't work anymore.
Obusha,
"You and corrupt journalists like Hartmann need a new bogeyman other than Republicans, pal, it doesn't work anymore."
I understand that the Republicans gave money to the Greens and Nader.
Until the Greens and 3rd parties organize and unite to win instead of trashing all Dems instead of organizing with social skills and a strategy to win, You will be left out of the big league.
The thing about Obama is that his let down to Progressives is why we are talking about going beyond Obama and a new united front for real change. If the Republicans won, progressives would be sucked back into the Dem end of the See Saw.
We who voted for Obama knew some important things ... If the Republicans won, the see saw would put any Dem back in the next 4 years... and Bomb Iran McCain was on track for the See Saw to continue.
We knew no 3rd party had enough support or candidate who could play hard ball.
We saw the chance to unite progressives for a real change during Obama and after... and now We have that chance if we want it.
We knew Obama would disappoint and that is the lesson we needed to organize Progressives... first things first, now on to Phase 2. Organize and Unite.
I concur.
Oh, your always so good, Thom!
Is there anything here happening that hadn't been largely predicted by Greens?
I think it's time for a massive registration switch to the Green Party. At least that way millions will be able to regain an Identity that actually Looks, Sounds, and Feels like what is in their hearts and minds.
It would also put the Dems ON NOTICE: Hey, we're gone -- you want to find support again? Go look at the Agenda and Platform on gp.org. Emulate that, and you'll know not only how to find us, but also learn what a sensible, democratic, and sustainable vision for the future looks like.
Disruptive fact: The phrase "Free Market" is an oxymoron, like "married bachelor." Look "market" up in the dictionary or an economics textbook. It is a defined system that enables the transaction of business. A market is a set of rules, regulations, laws, restrictions - pick your synonym. The word "free" in the expression means "unrestrained" or "unregulated." An unrestrained set of restraints? An unregulated set of regulations? Absurd.
"Free Market" is code for "Change the market rules to benefit my business."
"Free Trade" is also a nonsense phrase: http://www.minorheresies.com/essays/2006/4/20/free-markets-free-trade-and-the-tooth-fairy.html
far be it from me to defend the NYTimes, but i think in this editorial they were thinking of all the protectionist measures the industrialized world undertook in the 1930's during the (soon to be 1st) Great Depression. in that, they are right. protectionism in the 30's exacerbated tensions b/n countries, and did nothing to lessen the depression (or head off the conflicts leading to WW2). a wave of hasty, irrational protectionist measures today would probably produce the same result.
certainly not defending what friedman & the Times have promoted for twenty years as "globalization", but i think this article is dishonest and misleading.
and appeals to nationalism? christ, haven't we had enough of that?
Actually, the high tariffs are a good example of why "free trade" is nonsense. Britain was the champion of "free trade" when it had an industrial advantage against their competitors. In cases where there was potential competition, like in Egypt or India, they simply destroyed their industrial bases. One British imperialist, Sir John Bowring, in 1837, said "A manufacturing country Egypt never can become". That is the underlying logic of adopting “free trade” when you have a competitive advantage. What really started WWII? There are many factors, the biggest is probably though the British closing off their markets to Japanese competition. Now, people point to this as a sign that "protectionism" is a bad thing. WHY did Britain, the former champions of "free trade", shut out the Japanese? They no longer felt so confident that they could compete and they thought they HAD to. "Free trade" makes no sense if you are at a competitive disadvantage, which the vast majority of the world's countries are. America's tariffs weren't higher than they were in the past during WWII, look at the facts, they just were against the insane phase of "free market" nonsense that directly proceeded it. Karl Polanyi, in "The Great Transformation", talks about this and calls it the "double movement". Countries adopt liberalized nonsense like "free trade" and the horrible gold standard, they cause pain for the general public and the move towards "free trade" causes a QUICK, not gradual, movement directly against "free trade" by people harmed by the policies (the majority of the country). Society feels a need to protect itself. Maybe an obvious lesson to learn, since "free trade" has been such a disaster for most people and countries (without exception in recent decades) is to never adopt "free trade" policies in the first place, don't ya think?
If that's what really happened, I think I need to go back and relearn free trade. Without free trade, the economy would be sputtering. Can't make them products too expensive. Everytime you fill up your gas tank and get your food cheap, you gotta be thankful free trade got you there. Hey, how about another burger and fries to go with it?
Obama and his over-educated Ivy League Morons are ruining the country. For instance, Bubba Clinton and the Bush Yalies who
promoted Nafta, WTO,and Deregulation, that has led to the destruction of our industrial base and the outsourcing of our industrial base to China, a subject that they are simply to afraid to mention. We are in a major depression and Obama is simply to naieve, to young, and to loyal to the Israelites that he has surrounded himself with.
The Stimulus is a diversionary tactic to divert attention
from our failed economy and will never rise us up from the
serious depression that we are into.
Congress must stop drinking that Free Trade Kool-Aid, as it
has dragged us into the depths of a major depression.
Obama has already told us that those good paying jobs in the auto industry will never return.
There is no such thing as "over-educated".
tom we miss u so much here in nyc. whats up with air america?
they always manage to shoot themselves in the foot. you
mike malloy randi rhodes all great minds and great speakers.
sioux rose you live in ny and can:t find mental stimulation?
have you tried the brecht forum? you:ll love it.many of the folks
whose articles grace these pages speak there.smart articulate people.
Sioux Rose
TTT: I was born in New York. I live in upstate Florida, the Bible belt. Now do you understand why there is slim to no like-minded companions in this zone? It is, however, the perfect writer's retreat, and a great place to stay young and get exercise. Nature is my friend. I am too open in my "circuits" to live in a noisy, congested place. I can't sleep in such zones, and the "frequencies" I operate on are constantly bombarded. I prefer to be the intuitive monk-writer in the woods, who is at times thrown the occasional sensual companion too tempting to pass up!
How can there be free trade when powerful monopolies and their bought politicians manipulate the market and the law to prevent competition? Drug prohibition, corporate tax exemptions, off-shoring, lobbying, bribing, war profiteering, and disaster capitalism come to mind.
there is a great writer , historian, who traces practically exhaustive details of the history of imperialism, monetarism, capitalism, US "dollar hegemony as a tool of imperialism", etc...
Henry CK Liu who writes for Asiatimesonline...very exhaustive , LONG articles...
basically saying, correctly :
"THE USA is really a protectionist nation PRETENDING to be free-market....and it is the USA that is the world's main currency manipulator".
Not a single mention of the VietNam War in launching the South Korean economy!!
Similarly, Japan was economically rebuilt largely by the Korean War.
Kenya wasn't in a particularly good location to similarly benefit.
Wow, that's a persuasive analysis. Not!!!
"Our economy has gone into the toilet over the past 30 years, and President Obama and his advisors think "free trade" is the solution."
-well, we may be in the toilet but the PTB wouldn't be pushing these policies if they weren't lining someone's pocket. By definition, if our government is pushing a policy someone is profiting.
Didn't Goldman Sachs just post net profits of $3.44 billion in the last three months, up from $2.1 billion in the same period in 2008?
But here's my dilemma about Free-trade and Globalization, and hence Thom's article. As a liberal, I try to think in global terms. I see national boundaries as artificial, and really just another outdated -ism, like racism, sexism, etc.
As a US citizen though I have to admit my standard of living is by and large much MUCH better than so many other citizens of the world.
SO...if the goal is to help others regardless of a trivial -ism of nationality, doesn't it make sense that some kind of evening out should occur? In the US we like the idea of taxing the have's to help the have-nots. How is that different from globalization?
As I said, it's a dilemma.
I can't make head nor tails of what you are trying to say. But apparently you haven't been following the issues since the battle of Seattle and later actions brought them to light...if you can still recall what the Battle of Seattle was.
To summarize, this thing called "free trade" and "globalization" is really a program of the subversion of national and local worker sovereignty under multinational corporte control. International "trade agreements" are about first and foremost, prohibiting nations and communities from protecting themselves from labor, environmental and financial exploitation. All kinds of laws and efforts of countries to improve the lives of their citizens can now be challenged with multi-hundred billion dollar lawsuits under the WTO agreements because the regulation would be an "impediment to trade" or "hamper their right to enjoy their investment".
Just one example. In the late 1990's Canada attempted to ban MBTE - a gasoline octane additive with harmful health effects, which increasingly contaminates groundwater supplies. so, the Ethyl Corporation, successfully sued the government of Canada for hypothetical profit they would lost on the sales of MBTE for perpetuity - it was hundreds of billions of dollars. Canada, of course, had to back down or face financial ruin.
In another case, UPS almost succeeded in a lawsuit that would have effectively required Canada to dismantle their national postal service - because it was a government-run impediment to their ability to expand their package delivery service.
There were also lawsuits in the other direction against US governmental entities too.
Many of international trade deals under "globalization" are really just a foot in the door to eventually having the same corporate-run regime at the local level wher sovereignty still applies. Then, you will see insurance corporations forcing the US government to abolish medicare (they're doing the job slowly already), and the forced dismantling of all labor and environment laws and publicly provided services.
Fortunately, thanks to the sucess of resistance in the streets, the economic troubles of the star-pupils of neoliberal globalization like Argentina, and certain critical national leaders like Chavez and Kirchner, the "globalization" program is largely in limbo.
Let's keep it that way - and reverse it - come to Pittsburgh for the G20, Sept 24 and 25.
Interesting, free trade means enslaving or impoverishing the workers of the world, and giving corps free reign to destroy the environment for profits shuttled to an elite few. The leaders of poor countries didn't feel bad about taking jobs from Americans and putting their people to work--until those same jobs were taken from them and sent to cheaper labor elsewhere (the proverbial race to the bottom).
Facilitate the destruction of the worker and environment by making it 'illegal' to interfere! How ingenious--except that it is not sustainable and is playing a huge part in the worldwide economic collapse we're witnessing now (along with an exponential increase in environmental destruction and/or degradation). People no longer have money to buy much of what is made at any price, and world trade is beginning to implode upon itself. How sad when it COULD have been used to improve the lot of workers everywhere, and to preserve the environment. Instead, an elite few have been allowed to rape both, leading to their own demise as well. It proves that when psychopaths are given enough rope they will eventually hang themselves.
Chessgame56, nooses are a growth industry, and one of the few bright spots in the economy.
Everything you've noted is about the IMPLEMENTATION of globalization - which as you note has been horrible. You haven't said anything about the UNDERLYING IDEA. Einstein and other ultra-liberals dreamed one day of a World Government, where all citizens of earth could go to for justice, economic help, etc. THAT is the goal of true Globalization. Or would you call what has been implemented something other than Globalization...maybe so "perverted" that it's really nothing like what Einstein et al. envisioned?
The dilemma expressed in my original post is that, what if in order to attain the ultimate goal of True Globalization (ala Einstein) some had to suffer? For example, we Americans who by and large have it better off than most might have to lose a bit so that others can gain (for ex. jobs going to India). Is that acceptable? ((And yes, of course there are those in the US who can't afford to lose anything because they have nothing. I'm talking about in general here.))
I would call what has been implemented something other than the Globalization you have in mind. There is a big, BIG difference between the idea of Einsteinian "world government"-- the UN being the biggest example of that-- and economic globalization as has been adopted, which is a tool whereby corporations can squeeze riches out of any part of the globe they choose; and governments become subservient to the interests of corporations which run roughshod over countries, peoples, and their environment. That is the underlying idea, and it sucks. I believe there is no way to "implement" it to benefit humanity. Therefore I have been against "free trade" agreements since they started in the '70s.
The idea of "free trade" and "globalization" is agreeble to the point of being a trivial tuatology. Who could be against it? This is exactly why these words were chosen to refer to the program of giving the corporations free domination over a countries sovereignty. Anyone opposed to it can can then be painted as being completely unreasonable.
Note that they have done the same thing with the word "freedom".
Thank you.
Your comments are ridiculous. How does destroying the U.S. middle class and turning our country into another Mexico (with absurd extremes of rich and poor) help anyone? It only helps the super-rich become ultra-rich.
Don't you know how insulting your "dilemma" is to U.S. citizens who go hungry every day, or who have lost their jobs and homes and are fearful they too will soon be living in the street? Are you blind as well as dense?
Maybe you'd be happier if South Korea had remained as poor as Kenya? That would certainly make them more "even" with North Korea.
Obviously I'm talking in general. And really by comparison, someone in the US who lives in a run down house, bad schools, barely getting by BY COMPARISON might still be better off than the person in Indonesia who literally lives in a box, begs for food, and whose kids don't even know what school is.
See my post a couple down. You're talking about the Implementation of globalization, which obviously has had horrible effects. But what about the underlying ideal?
I look at some a-hole like Milton Friedman and wonder why in the world would he (when he was alive) espouse the ideas he did, that caused so many to suffer? Was he really evil, or did he have the right goal, but totally wrong approach? It's like a parent who spanks their kid: their goal is to help the kid be a better person. Their method of course is dead wrong though. Or are you saying the chieftains of globalization DON'T have that as their goal? COuld be.
pjd412 already told you what globalization is truly about.
And, btw, you have no idea what poverty in the U.S. looks like. None.
Naturally: When you talk about "middle class" what do you consider to be "lower class"? The overwhelming majority of "middle class" persons must work to live hence is really "working class". "Middle class" is a pleonasm to make me feel "higher" on the social ladder than I really am. I fervently wish that this nonsense of "middle class" will be buried forever.
"Middle class" usually refers to those in between rich and poor. I don't think it has any relationship to the term "lower class," which is a social denomination and not an economic one. I don't really see the term "lower class" used in any context; at least not in this country.
If you prefer "working class," that's fine. I couldn't tell you what distinguishes the two terms.
If fair trade instead of the Orwellian "free trade" were in place, global trading wouldn't be in pathetic status as it is today.
So you think the basic idea of Globalization is sound, just the implementation is wrong?
I wouldn't buy into globalization completely. There are some good things that need to be shared throughout the planet and if it can be done, why not? Otherwise, it's best left to nations to have their own. Sorry for the confusion.
Hey Max, did you see where the Washington Post is getting slammed for allowing Sarah Palin to publish a front page editorial about cap and trade? I read her piece. She rants and raves about how it will damage our economy, and how America's greatness has always been propelled by "abundant, affordable energy". I thought of you. Abundant and affordable petrofuels are illusions, and the costs written off to other species and future generations. I so agree with you that when we stop thinking of oil and gas as being abundant and affordable, we'll begin to see our way to a sustainable future.
Off topic with regard to the article we're posting on, but here it is anyway:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302852.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
I wouldn't say this one is off-topic at all given that most of our oil is imported anyway. I saw the article link you posted and wow, 2751 comments so far ! I didn't bother reading the comments but her article is laughable for the most part. This is especially the part I find laughable:
"We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia?"
And for years, the Republicans too have been doing just that. We've been importing oil from Russia and SA and in the case of China we've been importing all their manufactured plastics thanks to China PNTR but don't expect Palin to admit it.
Cap-and-trade will be a boon to Wall Street but I find her ideas completely out of tune but no surprise there.
I know that growing hemp or algae for oil won't be cheap at least first but for all this oil trading, we've been giving away our madness to those people and turning them into rebels at large. It makes me think that we're witnessing the curse of Black Gold. Higher prices will mean conservation and better fuel efficiency as a must have.
smipypr
I did a post yesterday on buzzflash about my disappointment with the Obama, Summers, and Geithner, and the effect their policies are having. Someone accused me of being a Republican, paid to dis Obama. I have very conservative relatives, neighbors, and co-workers; when the conversation turns to politics, I have to walk away. There is little I can say to defend what's left of the campaign speeches. With Judge Sotomayor's pending (it looks good, at least so far) confirmation, Obama is now being accused of "changing the Constitution by taking away our rights". It's one good appointment among many misguided ones. I counter with the Bush treatment of the Constitution, and they reply, "He kept us safe." Kool-Aid? America has gotten accustomed to being some kind of ignorance-is-good bizarro world. Mission accomplished, indeed.
You're not alone. As some have reported on this site, most of the progressive and liberal blogs are filled with blind Obama supporters. Benn_Miller the other day on another post nailed it and AGG and JenniferBedingfield explained to him what's going on behind the scenes. The Republicans already know that Obama is giving them everything they wanted but are just running another dumbshow to fool their supporters just like Obama's PR people are getting out there to cover up for his pandering to the GOP. I think that we are already starting to get a taste of what it's like when the Internet gets to be politically controlled at least psychologically speaking. I just hope we all unite soon and stop staying "intellectually" divided otherwise we can forget about the Internet being the last great source to educate and enlighten. Sometimes, even on this site, I and plenty others come across total know-it-alls who are very rude and condescending. The Linux community was filled with such people while the Microsoft people weren't and look what happened. God help us progressives and liberals !
So Obama is running a "dumbshow" according to you, maxpayne, to fool "blind" Obama supporters, but then you complain about "total-know-it-alls who are rude and condescending"; and the Linux community(?) are filled with "such people." And yet you want us to "unite" in NOT backing the guy that is even mildly left-of-center and that tens of millions of liberals voted for. How do we unite when you won't? You seem to claim, like Bush did, that you are a uniter not a divider... just so long as everyone agrees with you, the real and true liberal (or, in the case of Bush, Amurican.)
Obama is not the end but the Beginning. Unless you destroy the beginning. Keep the pressure on your congresspeople. And send your comments to Obama. I will be happy to vote for better, more progressive people whenever they are available, but I will NOT vote in a fashion that throws complete power to the neo-con-fascist-capitalist Republicans. Nor will I refuse support for someone struggling with the beasts of DC to eke out even small victories for progress. And now that someone is "can't-we-all-just-get-along" Obama.
I had no illusions about the entrenchment of money and corporate power in DC, nor about Obama, as some seem to do. But I did not harbor illusions about the terrible, horrible option of a McCain presidency nor illusions about the chances of anyone else being elected either, as also some seem to do. That is why I gave and must give Obama's administration a chance, and not to instead give the enemies of progress more ammunition so they can bring back Total Republican Rule, which was the situation for, basically, the last quarter-century, since Reagan.
Complain about worse people and worse things. There are, you know.
Sir, you have no idea about what I'm talking about. If you had even bothered to keep up, you'd realize that Obama is already working hard to make himself a one-termer and he just might get it. I voted very reluctantly for Obama and like many I am regretting my vote even more. Is that what you're scared of?
Also, South Korea has a relatively progressive health care system where almost everyone gets health care, although it apparently is not full scale single payer, and it is not as progressive as all the countries that do have that.
Thom Hartmann, nice history here. Your next assignment is to tell us what historically happens if a country disbands its middle class. Do such countries become dirt poor? Do they have revolutions? Has one ever woke up one morning and decided to start the long process of bringing the middle class back again?
I really want to know, because the horses have left the barn if you know what I am saying.
But I am betting that the reason we have not seen Thom Hartmann tell us what happens if a middle class is completely zapped out of existence is that this has seldom if ever happened in the World.
"what happens if a middle class is completely zapped out of existence . . ."
Take a look at Mexico and Central America.
Makes me think of all the documentaries that I've seen about Brazil.
Doesn't Japan have universal health care too?
I think maybe FDR is the story of someone who decided to start the long process of bringing back the middle class, starting with the regulation of banks, then on to national infrastructure works, social safety nets, etc., everything that led to the mid- to late 20th century period of prosperity in this country, though there is a neo-con movement to discredit FDR and to say that war is what saved our country.
I will never buy the theory that WWII ended the depression, but that theory does have takers.
The significance of WW2 for our country was that it raised salaries/incomes hence purchasing power of the working class.
FDR did not bring us out of the depression. As you point out, he set the framework for future prosperity, which the thieves and buffoons have destroyed.
Regarding WWII, probably the real reason the war "got us out" was that, during the war, people were working with no place to spend money because everything was rationed. Therefore, they saved. When the war was over there was a big pile of savings to use for investment (private sector).
The powers that be are so afraid of economic slowdown they kept the borrowing paradigm going and now we will pay the price.
If I understand you correctly, the war machine had a lot of savings for people to slop off of because somehow they were not used to the idea of rationing and being frugal. Perhaps that's true. But to say that FDR did not bring us out of the Great Depression just isn't true. People were able to get him to do so and that despite very strong opposition in Congress and the Supreme Court. War spending was just a distraction. By now, war spending isn't getting this country out of another Great Depression but more into it.
Japan is to universal single payer health care as the Los Angeles Lakers are to basketball. They have a system that is beyond good.
There is a very strong correlation between the progressiveness and quality (excuse the redundancy) of a countries' health care system and the overall, long term success of its economy and especially of its middle class.
The causation actually runs in both directions. It has become basically irrefutable that the countries with the best, most progressive health care systems are the ones where the average person (middle class by definition) is the most well off overall. At the same time, looking at the flip side, the more right wing and/or the more poor a country is, the less likely it is able to implement or support a single payer system.
There is something that never gets mentioned about what unrelated matters that gets included in most "free trade" agreements. It's nearly impossible for an individual to sue government and overturn a ruling to benefit itself. Yet, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, CAFTA, etc ... permit such abuses to corporations and making it sadistically rewarding.
But that's not the only issue. What about all those intellectual rights and restrictions? Why would we want to write up a "free trade" agreement that effectively shuts down the right to creative thinking and sharing with ease?
Finally, let's not forget why Ron Paul despite his libertarian blood votes no on these pacts. He knows the first two already but he has a third powerful phrase to describe these scams. It's called FOREIGN BRIBERY.
The American people are going to have to choose, whether they will let the globalists enslave them or break free and become protectionists. Fortunately the globalists are so greedy they sowed the seeds of their own destruction. The Texas gnome warned you about that whooshing sound but no one listened. In fact it was the Texas gnome who elected Clinton. The only way the US can compete in the global economy is to match the global economy labor costs. The wealth creator’s greed destroyed the US consumer; exactly what the Texas gnome said would happen. The consumer class in the US was the result of protection. When the farm boy soldiers after world war two moved from farms to factories, they were protected, not by economic policies but by circumstances. The rest of the industrialized world was destroyed. We should become nationalists and embrace protection, and we should encourage all other nations to do the same. In place of invading people because it is in your best interest, act in your best interest at home. We labor people do not need to accumulate money, we need to accumulate leisure time and a means to pursue happiness. Wealth creators can not make as much money, but money making money produces nothing. Now we can not create any jobs because we produce very little and know one needs our service.
I agree with SiouxRose--good comments, Solrev!
I'v read several of Hartmann's books, spoke to him personally and even gave him a copy of the pro-working people, pro-union economist, the Jack Rasmus book, 'War At Home' several years ago. Go to www.kyklosproductions.com and check out Professor Rasmus.
Listening to Thom Hartmann on the radio for several years, he is a strong advocate for protecting American manufacturing, farming, labor unions-- "the folks that gave you a middle class,"-- among other things, including the 8 hour day, weekends, health and wealfare benefits, pensions, safety rules, and a higher standard of living which has been steadily eroding since the Reagan era.
Korea, like Japan before them, maintained protectionist laws, for the health of their own economies and citizen benefit. This globalization thing is unnecessary to a great extent, because in essence, it is a capitalist and imperialists dream for cheap, exploitable labor and the legalized theft of natural resources of weaker countries who cannot defend themselves against powerful armed forces of militarized nations. As Thom mentioned, when South Korea was ready, they opened up the door.
But Korean capitalists are trying to bust their own labor unions and return to the feudal system and have shifted some of their production overseas for cheap, exploitable labor and reduced, if any, benefits for the workforce that produce the wealth for the company.
Peaceman and Sioux, you both might find Thom's most spiritual book, The Prophet's Way, a great read; unless you've already read it.
sincerious<
Thanks for the recommendation. I haven't read 'The Prophet's Way' and I do admire Thom Hartmann. I've got a backlog of books to read, already. One of these days...
Sioux Rose
SINCERIOUS: I will put that book on my list, thank you. Peaceman and I tend to think alike about political matters. Perhaps it's that "peace" thing in a nation that exalts war and any excuse to create a fight or demonstrate a macho show of gun "play."
Sioux Rose
Good comments.
After reading this article I thought the U.S. should import some economists from South Korea to re-regulate our banking, insurance, real estate, and stock market "fields of enterprise." A president who really cared about the state of the nation would have to look outside its parameters for answers to its considerable problems. Same goes for looking to Canada and Europe for how to manage the public's health care needs.
How many really think that Obama drank kool-aid insofar as believing that the sorcerer's apprentices (i.e. Wall St. alchemists) really had the tools to fix the fiscal mess? Don't most of us realize that Obama is just the front man, a nice-looking, calm-speaking, well-groomed M.C there to keep the crowd entertained WHILE their pockets are being picked, their bank records tallied, their future taxes committed to "elite" causes?
We need to 'export' the free traitors who sent our jobs overseas to deluge us with slave-wage imports.
"Don't most of us realize that Obama is just the front man, a nice-looking, calm-speaking, well-groomed M.C there to keep the crowd entertained WHILE their pockets are being picked, their bank records tallied, their future taxes committed to "elite" causes?"
Precisely. Democratic and Republican presidents are middle management at most. They take their orders from the elite "leaders" of the country, meaning the monied elite. Money talks. Nobody walks.
What Thom Hartmann failed to explicate completely is the Korean concept of the Chaebol. They are large family owned, government assisted conglomerates whom began under the dictatorship of Park Chung-Hee as small enterprises that mushroomed into mega-corporations with familiar names: Hyundai, Samsung, LG, etc. Their affairs are front page news in South Korea, as their fortunes are seen as the nation's.
Obimbo will soon be proposing a law in which every city in the United States, including D.C., changes its name to Jonestown. Economic suicide and the sprint to the bottom will be the new "keeping up with the Jones'" in Jonestown, USA. And when it's finally all over here, Obimbo can move his family to Kenya and become The Wizard of Oz.
The local economy can support people through sustainable consumption despite Washington's avarice. Quit voting for them and act as if they don't exist. Starve the oligarchs peacefully by not consuming their corporate made goods. The idea is catching on like fire, and is working. Don't think the oligarchs are not shaking in their Gucci's, they are.
Stone, "voting with your dollar" is exactly what they want you to do. That's the capitalist mantra. Looks like you've accidentally had some corporate Kool-Aid: forget about actual democracy, instead buy the "appropriate" products. Certainly our corporatocracy parading as a democracy is absurd and obscene, but "ignoring" and thereby joining is insane. Public awareness and education is the only way to have a democracy that functions for the benefit of the public at large, not by buying the most conscientious commodities and turning your back on the system. The only reason you know which products are okay to buy, is because at various points along the line laws have been passed to require product labeling, and to protect us generally from toxins (unlike the wild west, for example, when flim-flammers went around selling elixirs full of household poisons; that's what having no laws get you). By all means, buy locally, but change the system with information, vote for people you respect, and then do your best to ensure they're informed and making good decisions that are reflected in the system overall. Turning your back is selfish and doesn't do anybody any good, except for you--if of course, the products you buy actually are as "sustainable" as you imagine they will be in a world with no civic protections and only trust.
Continuing to support this corrupt system by voting is insame. Voting perpetuates it and legitimizes it. Not voting in Federal elections is a vote, a vote to end a corrupt system by turning one's back on it and working at a level that is still responsive to people's needs, local government. Also, there are no labels on the food I consume, it is homegrown and home processed. Continuing to participate in the system is to participate in your own self destruction. Government cannot exist without the support of the people. End your support and the corrupt government ends too. These times call for big ideas and radical but peaceful change. Conventional thinking about change is self deluding and self destructive. Listen to your elders who have fought these battles their entire lives. It is now time for bold action not indecisive or cowardly whimp-outs. If one cannot lead then at least have the brains to follow.
I can't agree with you, Stone. If the electorate is down to 3 people, then 2 people will decide elections. At this point, the same people rule America whether one votes Democratic or Republican. Start by not voting for either. But we must take it from them, not just turn our backs on them. By our opting out, they will go on stealing everything, even if it's nailed down.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
As always, thank you Thom Hartman.
Heads up! The most powerful and controlling capitalists of the world (including the most powerful and treasonous in the U.S.) are creating their own New World Order. This is what globalization is all about, the de-industrialization of the U.S. in order to transfer favored industries to subservient nations where the lowest wages and cheapest natural resources can be had to further fatten the wallets of the global capitalists.
All this is being done to deny individual nations their own national sovereignty to retain control over their own national economic destiny.
.......And Thomas Friedman is the global capitalists biggest stooge.
I love to tell the story of when Thomas Friedman came to Sarasota, FL to lecture the Sarasota School Board about our national technical needs to compete in the global marketplace. The Sarasota Green Party chose to protest Friedman’s hypocrisy as he was the great advocate of exporting American industry and importing cheap engineers from India. . At the very same time we chose to protest George W. Bush arrival to address an elementary school in Sarasota. That was the day I was eye ball to eye ball with President Bush when he pushed his nose against the window of his big black limo, totally astonished to see us protesting. .......That was the day of 911.
can there be more americans like YOU - Stephen Riley?. i mean americans that are actually Human Beings who are citizens of the world?
Teddy, ..... there are thousands and thousands of them, we just have to learn to feed off each others energies for radical social change. I see a great movement emerging in a higher global consciousness, the World Social Forum, and Christianity from below is definitely maturing with a new spirituality of liberation. Rev. Jeremiah Wright was right, Obama was wrong.
Stephen,
Good going down there! You're my new hero!
A fellow Green.
Peaceman: I now live in Tahoe City, CA . I moved there to be with my daughter and family and my son as I was widowed in 2006. So I do a lot of travelling to attend conferences, etc. Leaving for Berkeley, CA tomorrow for the Summer Sophia Institute at Holy Names University.
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN: Saturn, the planet that functions as the cosmic hourglass through which the sands of time flow out and away, passed through LEO (our sign) from 2005-2007. I lost both parents in that interim, so a belated condoescence for the loss of your wife. Saturn is known to clear the field (symbolically) so that we can get on with our mission. It reminds me of the way Hamlet was haunted by the ghost of his father (time) in a constant reminder not to forget his "anointed purpose." I'm sure her spirit visits you if only when you dream at night. You are on a High path and others notice your Light.
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN: Wow! You were the soul of conscience there to bear witness as evil began to unfold the way a snowball gathers powder heading down the mountain.
Years ago I was staying with a college friend in NYC and got up early to walk down Park Avenue when I brushed against Richard Nixon and his bodyguard as he got into a dark blue limousine. Years later I dated a guy who went to a fancy academy (he was 10 years older than me) and was paired with Tricia Nixon for some major social event. It's that "Six Degrees of Separation" thing.
Sioux Rose: Thanks, I so love the way you can express your imagination and spirituality with words.
Sioux Rose
STEPHEN: Thank you so much. I think this forum actually hones those skills. There are a few thinkers here that inspire me and broaden my thought process; and a number of critics that force me to really fine-tune my premises before articulating them. Some are funny, some are friendly, a few are contentious without cause, and then there are the few that are ignorant and proud of it. My life-mentor Vincent calls C.D. "the salon" and from what I related, he said it reminded him of the living rooms of the intellectuals of Europe who would host a variety of guests with whom to share invigorating debates about the topics of their times. Where I live I could not find such company; so here I virtually am!
Let the salon roll on!
Mr. Riley is right. He is describing the form of the last bright flash to which I was referring in an earlier post.
“Fixing” our global v. local economic structures so that we can return to ‘Healthy’ growth is like instructing people how to best position themselves in the crush trying to exit a burning building. We have reached the end of economic, energy and material expansion. We are living in the little burst of brightness as the last of fuel superheats and burns out. It is time (past time) to recognize this fact and begin the serious business of getting from the growth model under which we currently labor to a homeostatic model of human economic integration into the natural energy economy of the biosphere – if it is not already too late to avoid the truly violent consequences of a cascading environmental failure.
James Keye: you propose a simple solution to a complex problem, and therein lies its very strength. Dealing with our problems is not really rocket science but a matter of getting back to the basics of what it means to be human beings living in a living earth and how we subordinate ourselves to the "natural economy of the biosphere." When Gandhi combined an occupation of handcrafts and ascetic living with his movement against the British Empire, he modelled for us this very "integration."
Mr. Rose: it is as you say, a very complex problem wrapped in simplicity,... wrapped in complexity. There is no way to accept the present design and adapt it into what is required. Nothing short of a revolution in thinking is required. Nothing less than the destruction of the present from which must come (as of course it must) the future. It is absolutely clear what must be if the ecological structure of the biosphere is not to undergo astronomical levels of change over the next 50 to 200 years and beyond. There are ways forward, but their very simplicity makes them unlikely.
Hooray for Thom Hartmann!!!!
A sane article about the true reason for our job losses and the people responsible for it.
As Jerry D Rose points out above..."makes the comparison between Kenya's poverty under free trade (along with that of most of Africa) and South Korean's prosperity under a protectionist policy (along with that of other Asian nations.)" Hopefully Africa's governments will start protecting her own people, start practicing a bit of National protectionism of their own. Tell the IMF, all the rest....including China, Russia and America that they are no longer interested in our welfare, but that of their own citizens. Everyone wins when that happens.
National trade policies protecting a nations own markets and industries always....ALWAYS, beat the misnamed mantra of "free trade"
Simply look at the surge of Nationalism in politics and trade among the rest of the nations of the world and its quite evident why we are getting slaughtered in manufacturing, jobs, education and most any other area you care to name.
While our Corporations and government play the "Globalist" game to increase profits for the few, the American worker is thrown under the bus.
Between the "Free Traders" and the "No Nationalism, we are all international citizens" bunch, we asre getting hammered. Perhaps people are starting to wake up?
Milton? Thomas?
So many Friedmans; so little time.
Friedman makes money selling his books about the "new capitalism" model of America and we get to read all about it hot off the overseas presses.
In 1992, union memebers were working hard to get a democrat in office. Two years later they were warning against the "free trade" agenda being forced upon the American public and we (the non-union public)drank the Kool-Aid right along with everyone else. I found myself defending Clinton to my fellow democrats & independents who were sure we were being "sold a bill of goods" by the owners & bosses, but I could not be convinced that a democratic preseident would turncoat.
I was also SURE that Clinton & the rest would stop the attack on poor children and unemployed parents by turning back Newt's Contract On America & welfare reform.
I fell for it too and now we all must pay & pay.
sallytip2: Like you I can stand before the people on this list and say: "My name is Jerry Rose and I'm a recovering Democrat." I too was an earnest follower and defender of NAFTA, etc. when it had the donkey label on it. I have only been recovering since 2006 but I'll never go back to that life of sin.
Fair trade, full employment, Employee Free Choice, Single Payer, electoral reform, reduction of military spending--all those who believe in such causes have found both the Democratic and Republican parties unresponsive. If all of us join together are there enough of us to form a third party? It seems to me that all the advocates of these positions could form a strong national alliance. Enough at least to decimate the Democrats. Then in the following election cycle the ground would be cleared--it would be true progressives against reactionaries-(Republicans and conservative Dems)and I'll bet we would win, especially if Republicans would return to power in the first round after a Democratic defeat. Would I wish a return to Republican power to cleanse the world of degenerate Democrats-- yes if it has to be that way temporarily to make a bigger move forward in the future.
Oregoncharles
It's true. There's not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans or Democrats. They whore for the same money (as Michael Moore pointed out), hence, their assignment is to further the very same agenda - world hegemony. And that means killing a lot of those who will surely resist, including WE the People of the US, if they deem it necessary. Dems and Repubs only oppose one another in the struggle to gain the most money.
A few people in my town have publicly - letters to the editor - quit the Dem party. If we can't build and support a third party now, when can we? Time is running out.
The Greens are set to go but they need YOU! They have ballot lines in most states, they have people sitting on city councils and other public offices around the country. The problem is the vicious marginalization orchestrated by the Dems and yes, the Republicans. We have to find ways of fighting the MSM.
The empire cares more about maintaining control than it does about any one party winning, so both parties are terrified that a third party will gain prominence. It could set a dangerous trend and they simply can't have that. So when Repubs donate to the Greens, for example, don't freak out. They do it to dirty the reputation of third parties. "Oh my God, nasty Republicans donated to the Nader campaign!" Remember that one? As if Ralph Nader would make a deal with fascists. I say take their money and use it against them.
Join the Greens. Help build a strong progressive party. Never, ever drink their kool-aid again. Let's get cracking.
I came in late on this but the idea is to form a new movement, a coalition of Progressives and those who want Fair Trade, Single Payer, Truth, Justice, Peace and more.
If the Greens are proud of taking money from the Republicans they are fooling themselves in thinking the Republicans do it to dirty the 3rd parties.... Don't kid yourself, they know they have nothing to fear from 3rd parties that do not unite. No, they do it to take votes from their rivals for money ... the Dems.
When the Greens acknowledge that we need to unite for a new movement like a Main Street party, with the Greens joining that movement, they would start to get somewhere and so would all of us who want to get somewhere with our goals.
We need new life, new ideas and we are the ones who can do it. Join the Greens? The Greens need to join us.
Oregoncharles, I realize you're attached to the Greens, but mainstream America is not. We need a party they can identify with if we want their votes. One thing everyone likes is no social issues and the Greens are full of them. People do not consider themselves left wing, but they do see the Greens as that (and they are). The Main Street Party is framed as mainstream, sticking to positions that have broad support. It's not everything you and I want, but it's enough to take back political power from the corporations. Right now, that's what we need to focus on. The corporations are destroying our democracy. Sometimes to get what you want, you have to start by settling for what you can get. And you may never get everything you want, but as it stands now, we aren't going to get anything.
You can talk about finding ways of fighting the MSM, but what do you suggest? They are only the minions of the corporate rulers. They are not the deciders, they are just carrying out orders. We need a whole new Congress if we want to change laws regarding media ownership. Right now we can't even get the words "single payer" past anyone's lips. I think the Greens will have a place in a new democracy, a real democracy, but I don't believe they can get us there. I think the Main Street Party can do that and then we can go from there.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
Oregoncharles: I agree with your assessment that "There's not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans or Democrats."
But one correction: Michael Moore endorsed BARAK OBAMA for president. If Moore is saying there isn't a dimes difference between the two why did he endorse Obama?
tammons, add free education through college and no corporate money in politics and you have the Main Street Party platform. Close to 60% of Americans support these mainstream positions so we could get their votes. Everyone I talk with really likes the idea of a Main Street Party and is ready to sign a petition to register it. If 435 people stepped forward to hold a community meeting to get helpers and get the Main Street Party registered in their Congressional district (my district needs 4300 valid signatures of registered voters), we would have a national Main Street Party. What stuns me is that everyone is ready to sign. It makes me think of a restless herd of cattle ready to stampede, just needing a direction to go. People are fed up and angry, but don't know what to do about it. Time to plow!
For me, the latest - although I'm sure not the last - outrage was on the Progressive Newswire by Public Citizen (Ralph lives on!) about a bill in Congress outlawing Congress from taking advantage of insider information gained in committee hearings when buying stock! And not just Congress, but an unlisted number of government employees. Right now it's legal for them to use that information to make money. Let's not even talk about how it influences their votes. I want to know how long this has been going on. This bill has been around for quite awhile, gathering dust. Not too popular with our public servants.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
A "third" party will actually be a "second" party, since the Repubs and Democrats are essentially one party, as Ralph Nader has pointed out for so many years.
But you are absolutely right. Voting for the Democrats has gotten us nowhere for decades, and it's past time that we woke up and adopted a strategy like yours.
Sorry, duplicate post.
Beginning with Japan and China in the 19-Th century "free trade" has nearly always been imposed by some variant of the "Shock Doctrine".
For the U.S. economy "free trade" today means above all unfettered access to crude oil in the future when the production from the world's oil wells begins to decline.
Since we cannot produce enough crude ourselves and since "energy independence" is a chimera President Obama may have concluded that "free trade" backed by military or other threats (e.g. Iran must come clear before September of this year or else) is the solution to the future oil crisis.
Of course it is not a solution but a rattrap.
Seems to me he's drinking the Milton Friedman kool-aid as much as BILLIONAIRE by marriage, Thomas Friedman's. Hey, Tom Friedman... Suck. On. This.
This article gets to a very important point about this president's economic policy ideas, and now we need to see how he's really drinking the Friedman kool-ade on other issues as well. It's a great step in the right direction. The hagiography over Barak Obama is fading from progressives' minds allowing them to think better and thus to move toward real solutions to real problems. Let's keep at it!
AD
Free trade grows the global economy. Protectionism grows the local economy. It seems to me that, as with progressive taxation, some middle ground must be found, and that's a nation by nation prerogative. One things for sure, if you leave it up to the IMF and the committee to save the world, you're in for a fleecing.
I'm about three-quarters of the way through this book:
http://openveins.fromthesquare.org/
If anyone wants to see how imperialism and "free trade" can damage third world economies, please read this book. It is a real eye opener. It's a history that is a must read and will make clear why Chavez gave this book to Obama.
And why Obama likely immediately handed it to an "aide" who promptly threw it into the garbage bin.
They don't want to see the Wave that's coming from the South, they don't want to see why it started and what it will do to them. Much better to pretend that they can somehow escape from their crimes, the People, and history.
But WE should see, WE should know. Because the wave is OUR greatest ally, but far from under our control. As any decent surfer will tell you: You have to read the wave to ride it.
Thanks for reminding us of this book, here's the full title and author info:
--Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent (or: Las venas abiertas de América Latina) by Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano in 1971.--
Here's the link to the wiki page:
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Veins_of_Latin_America--
Here's another book that helped me to see the Wave from the South for what it truly is, the resurgence of the culture of the First American Peoples through the structural lens of European-derived Democratic Governance. Maybe it was an idiosycratic vison, but nonetheless:
--1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, by Charles C. Mann--
And here's the wiki page for that:
--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus--
This article demonstrates how blind our Corporatist "leaders" can be.
Let's show them how much we can SEE, shall we?
-matti.
Oregoncharles
Thank you, thank you! My summer reading list is complete.
Struggle and matti: thanks for the information on both these books; they're going to the top of my reading list. On the wiki page link that matti provided is this quote of the "joke" that BHO made at a White House dinner when asked about the book that "Now, let me be clear, just because he handed me a copy of Peter Pan does not mean that I'm going to read it -- (laughter) -- but it's good diplomatic practice to just accept these gifts" His derisive "Peter Pan" reference to the book indicates the likelihood that he would read it; I can't imagine what he DOES read: except maybe Captain Marvel and Superman Comics; and maybe he has some DVDs of old Mighty Mouse comedies.
"If President Obama and our Congress don't soon learn the lessons Alexander Hamilton taught us in 1791, which he learned from Henry VII and were borrowed by Japan, South Korea, and China, we'll continue to see American industry slowly die. And with it will go the American middle class."
While I applaud the author for wising up, I am afraid he's too little too late. Except for war, banking, insurance, law, and most white collared professions, the American industry is already dead in the water. There is a way out of this though. In addition to getting more people to switch to credit unions, I say let Big Auto collapse and let the foreign autos take over and sorry to sound unAmerican. Eventually, since Big Auto will be unable to stifle domestic competition as they've been doing for decades, the non-monied inventors and innovators can finally have their chance to show us possibly better technologies. Let's see "free" trade stomp on that if they dare !
O, bought and paid for....
When I cut the eye teeth of my economic philosophy, of course I learned the liberal mantra of "free trade" as the royal road to world prosperity. The "wealth of nations" is supposedly a wealth that will be shared by nations as all their boats rise together with a growth in productivity. Exposure to Marxian thought didn't really alter this, because Marx saw in the development of "world" capitalism the mechanism for breaking down all national boundaries in a process that would lead to a unified "workers of the world" movement called communism. So along comes Mr. Thom Hartmann and offers one of the few factual comparisons of economic development under competing systems of free trade (my old history books called that "mercantilism") and national protectionism, and makes the comparison between Kenya's poverty under free trade (along with that of most of Africa) and South Korean's prosperity under a protectionist policy (along with that of other Asian nations.)
My teeth are beginning to feel a little loose. Maybe I need another visit to Dr. Friedmann.
When I first saw this headline, I thought that Hartmann was referring to Milton Friedman instead of the fatuous Thomas. As it turns out, it could have referred to either one of these self-delusional fools.
In spite of its "takeovers" of GM and Citi, the Obama administration has been loath to take a properly active role in managing the bailouts, preferring to let "free enterprise" work its magic - which it did; the money has completely disappeared.
q
Agreed, I thought the refernece was to Milton Friedman too - he and the nutty Ayn Rand are the real philosophers behind the neoliberal economic agenda of the globalizers.
NPR reported yesterday that banks that benefitted from Obama's NO WALL STREET BANKER LEFT BEHIND PROGRAM are now taking securitized toxic assets that were originally rated AAA (but downgraded after the 2008 meltdown), repackaging them, paying Moody's to re-rate them AAA so they can resell them.
As a result of Obama's bank bailouts and upcoming NO INSURANCE COMPANY LEFT BEHIND PROGRAM masquerading as health care reform, US industry will not experience a slow death as the author predicts...it will experience a rapid death.
Oddly enough Mr. Obama is practicing a sort of economic protectionism.
He's not allowing any ideas, other than those spouted by Geithner and Summers, to enter the oval office for discussion.
Perhaps it was in the 60s when I heard or read somewhere that the Rep. Party had decided to invade America, starting with memberships in school boards, leaders in city and county governments, and such. They were supremely successful eventually convincing about half the population of this country to believe slogans that were not at all what they suggest. Now their power base is in money, but still get too close to 50% of votes in a national election.
How to explain that half of us went along with wealth trickling down, outsourcing is good, 20 cents of every dollar we pay to health insurance companies is "overhead" which includes maybe 10% profit, as well as buying politicians, doctors and others.
The chasm between them and us is now so great that we don't hear each other any more.
We who read this probably also read the other sources that quote each other. Preaching to the choir.
Any Republican reads (or listens to) Thom Hartmann?
And your point is?
Cygnus,that's so funny because it's so sadly true. Lingum, great analogy. So sad, but again I had to laugh out loud.
Agreed. And Obama's justification for bringing in Geithner and Summers is that because they and the Clintonistas got us into this mess, they best understand how to get us out of it. Going by that logic, a serial killer would make a great candidate for chief of police or the FBI if our aim was to bring down the murder rate. Even so there is a beauty to this logic--if putting the crooks in charge is your aim.
Cygnus,
My thoughts exactly. He idolizes these two men whose economic philosophy helped ruin this country!
That was also Dubya's mode of operation...listen to the yes men and ostracize everybody else.
If Obama has chnaged anything I haven't noticed it. Perhaps he changed the color of the towels in the white house bathrooms.