! ! On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ! > You can't have trade, let alone genuine division of labor (which is ! > what free trade really is), with regimes that can compel people to ! > work against their will for next to nothing. ! > ! ! What's your opinion on "regimes that compel people to work against ! their will for next to nothing" that are supported by other countries ! and their respective business corporations? ! ! I'm appalled to see that you have no idea on how big companies operate ! in third world countries.
I *do* see how they operate, and I *don't* approve of it. Bad enough they are taking advantage of slave labor, they are also screwing their fellow homeland citizens out of the per-capita capital investment that would raise standards of living in their country of origin (I assume you understand that there are big corporations that do this from other countries besides the US) if they were engaging in division of labor with their fellow citizens, as they should be. Instead that investment is leaving their country and going to the third world country under the false banner of "trade" (free, fair or otherwise). The only clarification to that position I wish to make is that of the two, the slave labor has it better off. Why? Because they are at least getting a measure of capital investment they would otherwise not be getting, albeit under adverse and frankly inhumane conditions, so their wages are rising even if they don't feel it because of the cooperation between local thugs/dictators and the multinationals. The citizens of the home country of that corporation are realizing real drop in their standard of living, even if this drop has been managed and gradual so as to be imperceptible by lowering prices of goods imported along with that. But the bottom line is, wages and prices are falling in the home countries of those corporations and are rising in the "slave labor" country. Their standards of living are being negotiated away with every "free trade" treaty. Under a Calco administration, there would be no foreign tax credit, no "free trade", and any importation of goods from abroad would be subject to an ad valorem tariff to ensure that the labor of the home market remains attractive to capital investment. (not picking and choosing industries, nor favoring any particular company, nor establishing quotas or any of that). Just make it disadvantageous for companies to import into the US and advantageous for them instead to produce in and export from the US. That policy is doing wonders for china. Note China's outstanding "growth"---it has been entirely of this variety. Foreign companies investing their capital in Chinese labor (even though most of it ends up in the Communist Party coffers). A win-win for the dictators and the CEOs of these companies. There would also be no income tax on persons or businesses operating in the US. The IRS would be sent out exclusively to collect tariffs and go after the corporations that attempt to engage in division of labor with foreign governments outside our social compact. I would advise every country to do the same. Trade is trade and that's great, but division of labor is something that should happen between citizens of a country under that country's laws. I am not a free-trader or one-worlder in any sense of the term (I'm fine with the nation-state concept and believe the world can tolerate many diverse cultures and traditions as long as people mind their fences and behave themselves). I find all the hot air hooey about the "inevitability" of the global economy to be the real cause of global warming. (Just like the "inevitability" of a grand socialist utopia eventually morphing into pure communism and ridding the world of pain and poverty forever was also pure nonsense.) On a lot of levels the ideological underpinnings of free trade have a lot in common with socialist thinking, which is why neo-conservatives (who are, lest we forget, "former liberals" for the most part) all seem to go for it. It's simply a different way to the same utopia. Neither of which are realizable in this life in a world of finite resouces. That having been said it also explains why both liberals and neo-conservatives are "for" free trade "in the abstract" (note it was Al Gore who "defated" the comical Ross Perot in the Larry King Live debate over NAFTA) -- the former is for it if is "fair" the latter if it is "free". Both are wrong, and a pox on both their houses. This is one issue where I'm totally out of joint with both parties on ever level. I like our Founders' approach, and all that nonsense about "can't retreat to Fortress America" and "tariffs caused the great depression" is utter, total rhetorical balderdash. I think rather than talk about the war or any of that I'll take some time in the coming weeks to flesh out all my views on this instead. At least it will be a change of pace and something interesting, if only to myself. ;) - Bob ! ! [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
