Bill B said: > I agree with this, but I disagree you can "point to larger solutions" by > blaming job losses on NAFTA in a way that is virtually indistinguishable > from Perot et all. I'm not suggesting maximum program everywhere, all the The focal point of left opposition to trade liberalization is a defense of the principle of labor rights and environmental standards in all nations. I think that is distinct from Perotista appeals. Actually, our side is trying to move away from the job loss issue to the implications of liberalization for job quality and pay. Obviously job loss is a problematic theme with 5 percent unemployment. It is really shorthand for losing relatively good jobs and getting relative bad ones. > time, but the left should raise proposals in a way that unites our side > and brings out our common interests, not reproduces those that e.g. are > imposed by imaginary lines on the earth's surface. It's doing that. In fact, starting with the NAFTA debate this work has entailed collaboration with trade unions and progressives in Canada and Mexico. > . . . > solution" in both the US/Canada and Mexico. And yes, I am in favour of > 'trade liberalization' if by that is meant freer access for oppressed > countries to world markets. Aren't you? . . . When you say it that way, who can disagree? Isn't the issue always the way principles such as this translate in practical application? In other words, it is really-existing trade liberalization in question. > > > To clarify: it was * against* the "dispossession of Mexican > peasants from their [communal] land". Right. Pardon my shorthand. > Michael Perelman asked if we should not have the right to pass protective > regulations in a city or state or country. Of course, and I'm all for > improving the regulations. But he goes on to say "The problem is that > capitalists use trade organizations to break down the protection of local > control". > > First, on the *strictly formal* level, and please correct me if > I am wrong, I don't think NAFTA stops countries from adopting national > regulations etc. It mainly imposes a certain kind of 'template' on > these, which I understand as a kind of a pro capitalist trade 'template'; > an extention of the direction GATT moved in for decades, e.g. no > 'discrimination' against capitalists on the basis of (certain specific) > nationalities. Well, this is what a major part of the debate is about. Will trade regimes undermine national or (in the U.S.), state sovereignty? It seems pretty obvious they do, though the scope and importance of this is open to debate. What else do you call the right of Mexican truck drivers to drive in California without a U.S. driver's license in an uninspected truck carrying uninspected produce working below U.S. minimum wage? What is left of U.S. national regulations in light of that? > If Michael is saying our stance on trade should be based on something like > "protection via local control" under capitalism, well, I just can't agree, > because it seems to me like tilting at windmills, or weaving ropes out of > sand, or some such metaphor. I would disagree as well. Standards are intrinsically broad in scope, otherwise they are not standards at all. Local jurisdictions may be best suited to run their schools, but localization goes fundamentally against the grain of labor and environmental standards, for pretty obvious political and technological reasons, respectively. BTW, I was serious about soliciting better fuel for this debate from you and this list. Thus far it seems you have been dwelling on the maximum program. Solidarity with workers in other nations, for instance, around what exactly (or approximately)? Cheers, MBS =================================================== Max B. Sawicky Economic Policy Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1660 L Street, NW 202-775-8810 (voice) Ste. 1200 202-775-0819 (fax) Washington, DC 20036 http://tap.epn.org/sawicky Opinions above do not necessarily reflect the views of anyone associated with the Economic Policy Institute other than this writer. ===================================================
