[DemoCoder]

In other words, we need protectionist trade that protects anarchronisms like American textile workers. The whole point of trade is that someone else can manufacture or supply a resource better or cheaper than you can. Otherwise, there's no point, no gain, in the transaction. "Fair trade" has often meant protecting inefficient American production from overseas competition. It's meant idiots with bulldozers symbolically crushing Japanese VCRs and DVD players because there's something unfair about no one wanting to buy RCA's shitty products. Or that Japanese don't want to buy Fords with steering wheels on the wrong side, or big bulky American cars, with bad aesthetics.

Now the rallying cry of "fair trade" is outsourcing and third world markets, but in the 80s, it was focused on asia, particularly Japan and the tigers. Yeah, I'm sure the American labor market is concerned most with the "exploitation" of IIT graduated Indians in the high-tech sector that handle IT/Call center outsourcing, and not the fact that Americans are losing these jobs to cheaper markets simply because the U.S., because of modern technology, has no comparitive advantage in running a call center anymore. I have lots of friends who went back to India and work in the IT industry there. Despite the fact that they make 1/5 of US wages, it's enough in local Indian purchasing power to hire chauffeur drivers, maids, cooks, and to live a pretty good lifestyle. Exploitation my ass.

[Clashman]

And "free trade" Libertarian dogma has meant 6 year olds working on sewing machines. If I had to pick which is less destructive to society, I'd say it's the idiots with the bulldozers.

[Natoma]

Originally Posted by Clashman

To Natoma: Kucinich called for neither an instant nor unilateral removal of U.S. troops. In fact, removal of U.S. troops would be predicated upon U.N Approval and the transfer of peacekeeping role to the United Nations until the Iraqi people were able to handle the security situation themselves.

It's unfortunate that Kucinich didn't have you as his speechwriter in the early days of his campaign when it actually mattered what he said. Kucinich's views on the Iraq war have morphed significantly over the past year in large part because of the presence of Howard Dean. When Kucinich first began speaking about the Iraq war, and throughout 2003, his plans in short were always:

"Get the US troops out and get the UN Peacekeepers in, immediately."

Then:

"Get the US troops out and get the UN Peacekeepers in, in 90 days."

Then:

"Get the US power out and hand over authority to the UN, with the US troops under the control of the UN authority as part of a large multinational force."

The 1st instance was his stance from January 2003 through roughly October/November 2003. He changed his stance basically after the Administration brought out the June 2004 deadline, and now he's saying the last over the past few weeks.

As with Kerry, I'm not concerned with what the candidates are saying now. I'm concerned with what they've been saying over the course of the entire campaign. There's a reason that nearly every single candidate (and myself as well with many others) discussing this issue with Kucinich have painted him as someone who wanted an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. That's simply irresponsible, and Kucinich has commedably modified his position. But the fact that he even considered removing ourselves from Iraq immediately and pushed that as credible policy, pardon my bolds, scares the living fuck out of me.

Originally Posted by Clashman

Also, with regard to trade, Kucinich hasn't been calling for the U.S. to tuck itself into a hole and withdraw from the international trade community. Rather, he's demanded that trade take place in a just and equitable manner.

Kucinich has stated over and over, "Cancel WTO. Cancel NAFTA." Is the description of that behavior unilateralist? Is that the same as Bush cancelling the 1972 ICBM Treaty? Pulling out of Kyoto without any discussion on the matter with anyone else?

A Unilateralist manuever is a unilateralist manuever imo. What he called for in their stance were bilateral agreements with each country. Either way, the policy proposal is unilateralist.

Originally Posted by Clashman

Edwards on the other hand, seems to be copping out to me, saying on the one hand that he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA if he would have been in office to suck up labor votes, and at the same time saying that if he got into office he would only seek to restructure it, which would seem to me to be a perfect way to wind up doing nothing once he got into office.

I call Edwards position realistic. Just as with Iraq, we're in the "NAFTA world" now. We can't just "pull out," "go home," and hope for the best. We've got issues that we must deal with on the world stage. Iraq is a huge problem that this administration got us into. But we have to deal with it now. NAFTA has problems, yes, but we have to deal with them. Not run away from them.

Edwards interests me for one main reason. His honesty. He's said quite clearly, I cannot get your jobs back for you. These jobs are gone. But what I can do is try and make sure that going forward, the trade agreements we've got in place make it more equitable for companies to invest jobs in America rather than overseas, by editing the trade agreements we've got today. That will help stem the tide. It won't stop it, nothing will, but in the meantime while we're doing this, we can divert funds back to american workers who have been laid off and help them retrain, and move up to different jobs.

These are his words, his policy proposals. And frankly, in the world of today, I think the most realistic.

Originally Posted by Clashman

Kucinich on Iraq: (Admittedly the timeline might be overly optimistic, and any UN force would likely contain U.S. troops, but the general idea is fairly solid, at least compared to the ghost plans of Kerry, Edwards, and Bush).

Edwards has the same plan as Kerry. We deal with the problem by moving toward a multinational force, but our troops must stay there in order to keep the peace and keep the stability of Iraq. Iraq must not fail, and at this point, I trust our 130K highly trained troops moreso than a ragtag group of UN peacekeepers who would be taking over a very volatile situation with almost no experience on the ground with the natives, the lay of the land, etc.

Frankly I don't even know if the deadline idea was a good one. Because what happens if June 30th comes and goes, and the situation in Iraq is the same, or worse, than it is today? What then? The situation is an organic one. We're there, and we've got no choice at the moment. But cutting and running as Kucinich made his policy position (probably to differentiate himself from Dean when Dean was rising fast) for most of 2003, is not smart either. All imo of course.

[Humus]

Originally Posted by Clashman

And "free trade" Libertarian dogma has meant 6 year olds working on sewing machines. If I had to pick which is less destructive to society, I'd say it's the idiots with the bulldozers.

In the end of the 1800s Sweden was a poor country. Child labor was common. Working days were at least 12 hours, usually more. Fortunately, that didn't keep England and others from investing here, otherwise we'd still be largely a agriculture society. Child labor continued to exist a good deal into the 1900s. Starvation came to an end around 1920. Around 1970 we were the fourth richest country in the world.

The countries that are poor today will have to go through the same pain, only they can get through it faster. What took us 80 years they can do in 30 years. 1950 south korea was poorer than most african countries. Starvation all over the place. Today they are comparable to some west-european countries. I'd say the bulldozer idiots are way more destructive to society. They are removing the poor people's only chance to grow.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by Natoma

Edwards has the same plan as Kerry. We deal with the problem by moving toward a multinational force, but our troops must stay there in order to keep the peace and keep the stability of Iraq. Iraq must not fail, and at this point, I trust our 130K highly trained troops moreso than a ragtag group of UN peacekeepers who would be taking over a very volatile situation with almost no experience on the ground with the natives, the lay of the land, etc.

its a bit erroneous to claim that UN troops do not have experience on the ground

un peacekeepers have been deployed succesfully in many regions of the world and have done their job... they are made up of troops TRAINED in peacekeeping... our troops are not... the UN has a good standing as well in the region... recall sistani has been calling for greater UN involvement to legitimise aspects of the current occupation...

iraq must not fail... that goes w/o saying... but its not proper to call our troops superior to other nations or the UN's wrt peacekeeping... our lads are trained for war.. not the post-war..

[Natoma]

No experience on the ground with the natives of Iraq.

[Sazar]

Originally Posted by Natoma

No experience on the ground with the natives of Iraq.

they have dealt with similar situations the world over... iraq is not going to be much different... we been there a year and still have issues... the brits otoh don't...

[fbg1]

Forgive me for jumping in late, but...

Originally Posted by Natoma

Edwards may not be comfortable engaging in attack politics, but I know the bush campaign will have no compunction doing this. One big reason why I think Kerry is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think Edwards is not comfortable attacking fellow Dems, but I think he'd have no compunction about going balls out against GW in a general campaign. He's trying to be an optimistic Clinton redux, trying to appeal to a Dem electorate who doesn't want to see their eventual nominee too damaged by the primaries to beat Bush, and may be trying to keep his VP options open. It seemed to be working in Iowa, though that may have been a red herring that caused him to decide not to go on the attack in following primaries and caucuses.

Originally Posted by Natoma

Of course, November could very well prove me wrong if Kerry wins the democratic nomination (please if there is a god please please please don't let that happen).

Oops, too late...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040303/D812IVIO0.html

Well you can always vote Libertarian...

[Natoma]

I'm getting ready to turn in my democratic registration after tonight.

[L233]

Originally Posted by Humus

In the end of the 1800s Sweden was a poor country. Child labor was common. Working days were at least 12 hours, usually more. Fortunately, that didn't keep England and others from investing here, otherwise we'd still be largely a agriculture society.

In the 1800's child labour was common everywhere across Europe, and England was no exception. Hell, it was the atrocities of English "Manchester Capitalism" that spawned redical ideologies like Marxism because the whole economic concept was just too damn explotive.

Foreign investments rarely happened because all countries were protectionistic and mercantilistic. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Swedish history except that there were Vikings and Vikings are cool but I somehow doubt your version of it.

The situation in highly protectionistic economies with independent currencies is a whole lot different than today's gobal free trade with an international standard currency and international trade organizations bullying third world countries into doing a lot of dumb things that are bad for them. See Argentina, Turkey, Brazil etc. etc.

This simplicistic theory that those countries just have to go through their own Manchester Capitalim hell and they will somehow evolve into a modern industrial society is naive superstition into the mystical healing power of a free market.

If I look at those countries I meantioned I see countries that were a whole lot better off 30 or so years ago before they opened up their economies, tied their currencies to the US Dollar and let foreign companies ruin the domestic economy and giving them sweat shops in exchange.

[Humus]

Originally Posted by L233

In the 1800's child labour was common everywhere across Europe, and England was no exception.

Yes, and that's because it was needed to get enough income for the families. It's the same in poor countries today. If you ban child labor, you're cutting the poor people's income. When the economy get up enough to sustain living without child labor, then it can be banned, not before. And you should certainly not cut back investment in countries because they have child labor there, it will only ensure the problem remains even longer and cause further starvation.

Originally Posted by L233

Foreign investments rarely happened because all countries were protectionistic and mercantilistic. I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Swedish history except that there were Vikings and Vikings are cool but I somehow doubt your version of it.

Uhm, yes, in the end of the 1800s the Vikings came around with their swords and wooden boats invading England and large parts of Europe. They english guns and cannons couldn't do anything about it. Vikings invading the industries, killing workers and destroyed their machines. Yes, the Vikings and the car came around about the same time.
Hint: You're about 800 years off.

You better reread you history. In the end of the 1800s and the beginning of 1900 was a true globalisation era. Unfortunately, there came a WW1 and a WW2 that destroyed all that. No until 1970 were the globalisation back at the level of 1913.

Originally Posted by L233

The situation in highly protectionistic economies with independent currencies is a whole lot different than today's gobal free trade with an international standard currency and international trade organizations bullying third world countries into doing a lot of dumb things that are bad for them. See Argentina, Turkey, Brazil etc. etc.

This simplicistic theory that those countries just have to go through their own Manchester Capitalim hell and they will somehow evolve into a modern industrial society is naive superstition into the mystical healing power of a free market.

Or rather it's a reflection of the actual healing power of a free market. The problem is that WTO and IMF have done lots of stupid things, but that's their problem, not a problem with free trade. Usually the problem is that they have lended money to countries without corrupt governments that have just filled the dictators' pockets. They haven't been strong enough on demanding actual reform first. Of 26 studied countries only 6 had made any true reforms. That's the problem.

Originally Posted by L233

If I look at those countries I meantioned I see countries that were a whole lot better off 30 or so years ago before they opened up their economies, tied their currencies to the US Dollar and let foreign companies ruin the domestic economy and giving them sweat shops in exchange.

Tying the currency to the dollar is not the brightest thing to do. There was a time when governments tried to stabilize the financial markets by locking currencies to each other. The problem with that is that when economies grow at different rate you're opening up for currency rate speculation as some currencies become overvalued. Again, even here the solution is free markets. Let the market decide the value of the currency. It's the best way to protect yourself against currency crashes.
If all cases, it's not the opening of countries that have caused problems. If I establish an sweatshop in Europe I wouldn't get any workers if there are other better alternatives. Most financial crises have been caused by other underlying problems in the economy, not by globalisation.