First of all, the free market ideology that fuels all of the free trade agreements is rubish (IMHO).  Ask a free market ideolauge what assumptions that they have to make in order for their "scientific" models to work. It makes for some great comedy. One quick example: neoclassical economics relies heavily on the assumption that people are basically rational decision makers who weigh their options and make the most rational decision (as opposed to using some heuristic to make the decision and then rationalize it afterwords- a closer approximation to how we make decisions), and absurd idea that was discredited by psychologists and cognitive scientists long ago, and by common sense long before that (I mean- why do we go to wars?).

Then there is the idea of a "natural level of unemployment", which could be 5% today and 10% tomorrow. True free marketers would love nothign more than to let unemployed people starve if they aren't willing to work for substandard wages.

The other major idea within the theories that I have a major problem with (actually I have  aproblem with the entire theory, since it is built on such a shitty foundation), and the one that is most relevant to this topic, is the idea that economies, when left to their own devices, always move towards equilibrium. Thus we are told that if we open up our economies, that in the long run we will all benefit. But as Keynes noted- in the long rn we're all dead, and to use the working class of this and every country in some sick experiment is, in my eyes, a criminal neglect on the part of our government.

We are not heading towards equilibrium- or paradise or whatever- where every worker in the world benefits (I challenge anyone out there to show me real life examples of this over time). Rather we are now cauhgt in a race to the bottom, where the only winenrs are large multi-national corporations, and where the workers of every country lose out. And before one of you dreamers comes back at me with the standard "well don't you think that those third world workers are better off" let me plainly state- NO!. Even in the "developing world" workers are forced to compete with other workers in other countries, and the workers who will work for less, with less safety provissions, and less rules for allowing the person to live a real life, will win. And who loses in this race to the bottom? The working class of every nation.

We need to smack the living daylights out of the lefty free marketers who's dreams of economic utopia are leading to the destruction of the American Middle Class, and scream "WAKE THE FUCK UP!" The middle class IS the democratic party, and if you keep blowign smoke up our asses while our jobs are sent over seas, we'll never vote for you again.

the problem is one of endoctrination. Can you find me 2 economics department in this country that aren't dominated by the Neoclassicists and their wacky ass fantasies? I doubt it. I doubt that most Econ departments at the major universities have more than one person on their Econ. staff that doesn't belong to their cult.

Economists are really smart- but boy are they out of touch with reality.

I think Greider had an article along the same lines in The Nation recently. I'll see if I can find it. One of Samuelson's students took issue with Greider in a LTE and Greider pointed out that he was exactly the audience that Samuelson had referred to as over enthusiastic about the benefits of free trade and accused of ignoring the economic and human costs of "free trade".

Its simply that the nation only needs one Republican Party and we already have one. Republican are well situated historically to represent the interest of big business at the expense of the working and middle class. When the Democrats try to duplicate this role of its policital and structural opponent, it is superflous.

As Dean says; "In a choice between GOP-lie and real GOP, the GOP wins every time."

As a former true believer in the power of markets (and as someone who worked on promoting their adoption in Latin America), I think Latin America ia  a great negative example of the benefits and impacts of free trade and free markets.  Argentina is a prime example -- GDP and standard of living has declined post free trade and privatization.  

Now, maquiladora's in Mexico are suffering a similar fate -- they can't compete with China and so that Textile work and other piece work is leaving.  They are hopeful to get more "high end" work in Mexico but the net effect is negative.  

So, not only has free trade not borne the benefits for the US economy that folks had hoped, it is not bringing prosperity and happiness to many development countries.  The prime beneficieiaries of free trade are the shareholder's of Wal Mart.

Yes, it is true that consumer can get a nice $15 shirt from the GAP and a $100 DVD player from Wal Mart but it would be interesting to see what the trade off was in terms of net gain (after you factor in loss of jobs, civic centers, etc).

I also wonder what is the US's comparative advantage going forward?  Now that financial analysis, programming and almost everyone else are done more cheaply abroad, what's left?  Only I can come up with are marketing and entertainment.  How sustainable is that advantage?

But we need competition in ALL sectors.  Its the lack of competition in the CAPITALIST catagory that has hurt the poor.  The relative lack of competition in the EDUCATED catagory that has hurt the poor.

To help the poor we need to encourage many people to compete with the rich by buying stock, buying realestate, buying bonds, etc.  And becoming educated.

And in regards to foreign workers we need to strengthen foreign LABOR policies to protect them.  This in turn will protect us.

We are now dominated by global wage arbitrage. Even if your not outsourced, you are still competing with a lower paid foreigner.

To me the solution is simply and effective, and demonsteably so.

Minimum contant laws for strategic industries. It has not only saved the auto sector from being devasted like so many other manufacturing industries, it has even attracted foreign companies here to compete.

Minimum contant DOES NOT require tarriffs, it is fair to everyone who wants to sell to the US consumer, and it doesnt prevent ANY company from having off shore operations to serve other markets.

So long as the system allows foreign companies equal and fair "rights" to have an operation in the US, and other countries do the same, then the only people you are competing with are people in your own country, using equal laws, equal conditions, a true level playing field.

It shuold not be the priority of the US government to enhance the conditions of those living outside the US, that is a secondary concern, the primary concern should be for the welfare of US citizens.

This race to the lowest common denominator has to stop, we are never going to convince China and the like to adopt fair trade practices, not in the time frame required to rescue the US economy, and we should cease trying and force change ourselves, change we can control. Minimum content laws.

Kos did too:

Being against unregulated trade does not mean being against more trade. It is totally consistent to be in favor of trade expansion, while insisting that trade expansion benefit everyone. Unregulated "free" trade does not do that.

Nathan Newman made this point well:

The key to a progressive policy on trade is a commitment to full employment, of the kind we had during the second Clinton administration (4% unemployment rate or lower).

That would mean macroeconomic policies that keep interest rates low, and a federal commitment to spend enough on job-creating programs to bring down the unemployment rate to 4%.

This should be coordinated with a broad public investment program; maybe we should also think about:

• Using pension funds for social investing;

• Setting up a new, permanent WPA;

• Reforming financial market regulation to channel credit to projects that create jobs and promote social welfare;

Then we bring in labor market policies to retrain and relocate workers so they can take advantage of these new job opportunities, and community development programs to direct job creation to regions hit hard by the outsourcing of jobs. This could be realized through some of the policies outlined above.

And we haven't even talked about raising tariffs or other trade barriers yet, although we should reserve the right to do so (temporarily) if they are needed to ease adjustments out of declining industries, or to support infant industries, or to help us solve our trade deficit problem.