Re: Re: RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)

[Ian Murray]

they no longer feared populist tax revolts.


- Original Message -
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:26713] Re: RE: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a
different one)


 Which is why business supported the income tax.

 On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 01:17:43PM -0400, Max Sawicky wrote:
  Tariffs were an important source of Federal revenue
  in the olden days.

 --
 Michael Perelman
 Economics Department
 California State University
 Chico, CA 95929

 Tel. 530-898-5321
 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different one)

[Max Sawicky]

My impression is the AFL-CIO was pro free trade until the
early 1980's, when Bluestone/Harrison and others began
writing about the vanishing 'middle class.'

mbs



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Devine, James
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:35 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: [PEN-L:26722] RE: Re: RE: Re: PK on race to the bottom (a different
one)


I wrote:
 The point is that in the earlier long period of U.S. rule by the
 GOPsters (1861-1932, with short periods of DP rule, under Cleveland
 and Wilson), they regularly raised tariffs. For example, any
 pro-competitive impact that the anti-trust laws had was undermined
 by higher import taxes.

Doug writes:
 And organized labor was anti-tariff at the time, right?
In general, the CIO was anti-tariff until the 1970s. I don't know about the
AFL, which was relevant back in the period I mentioned. My impression is
that the AFL was more involved in another kind of protectionism, that of
being anti-immigrant and anti-Black (and anti-woman-in-the paid workforce).
The Knights of Labor, the IWW, and the CP-oriented unions (e.g., the TUUL)
were of course better on (some of, all of?) these issues.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Free José Padilla! or at least put him under civilian law rules!
JD