Redstate

That

1.  Free trade (in general) has been estimated to increase the U.S. GDP by about 10% (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/06/AR200506060
1508.html).

2.  By elevating wages in low-wage countries, CAFTA will, in the long run, reduce the incentive for illegal immigration.  (This is aside and apart from the fact that it is a good thing to enact policies that elevate the wages of the desperate poor.)
   
3.  CAFTA strengthens and stabalizes regional relationships -- among the U.S. and Central American countries, of course, but also, more importantly, among the Central American countries themselves.  A quieter hemisphere is in all our interests.
   
4.  CAFTA will expand the market for our high-wage goods and services:  Thus, jobs created are not only likely to be more numerous than the jobs lost, but they will also pay better.
   

Well, I'd say you put quite a few pro-trade Democrats into their political grave since the passage of NAFTA.  I'm sure you're crying crocodile tears.

I support CAFTA 100%.  There is no turning back from globalization, and it is certainly in our interest to cultivate our geographic partners into good economic partners.  Given the choice, I would infinitely prefer Latin America to have rapid economic growth over distant and less co-interest parties like China or India.

I'm not certain you are correct in CAFTA being a unifying Republican position.  While Buchanan may no longer be of the party, his followers remain.  It certainly splits the Democratic party more, so I grant you strategic advantage here.  I'm willing to concede that to do the right thing.  

A fourth reason to go forward is the reemergence of Marxist ideology in South America. While most of us thought the uniquely Latin strain was quarantined to a single island in the Caribbean when Nicaragua's last batch were inoculated 15 years ago, they have proved resilient. A particularly virulent strain has infected Venezuela, while violent outbreaks in Bolivia have also been detected. Even Brazil has tested positive.

Although once nearly extinct, this disease has reestablished itself in portions of Latin America. A prosperous, capitalist Central America that uses it's many outstanding ports to export goods worldwide would stop the virus' northward spread before it has the chance to infect Mexico. Then it's just a matter of wiping it out in South America again.

After the disease is again under control it may be possible to convince American Universities to get rid of the strains they have been keeping since the 1960's. These strains no longer have any research value but have been known to infect students from time to time.

I wrote this late at night and didn't outline it.  Thanks for adding some highly relevant points.

From the perspective of someone who understands economics very little to none at all, CAFTA is still the greatest thing to come down the pipe in a long time. The reason is very simple - the prima facie benefit of free trade compels even Democrats to vote for it, thus driving a significant wedge between them and an important section of their base - union members.

I don't know how the vote is going to go down, but when NAFTA came to the floor 27 of the 55 Democrats who voted said "Yea". What was significant about that was that it was the first piece of legislation to come down the pipe in a long, long time that your rank-and-file union member cared diddly squat about, and the Democrats essentially spit in their face on this one. When Clinton refused to veto the bill, that signaled the beginning of the end of union Democrat hegemony.

Now, Unions still vote largely Democratic, but the gap is not nearly so wide. What's become interesting is that the only way for the Democrats to save face these days with the unions has been to try to distance themselves from their NAFTA vote (see Kerry, John, 2004). So, I think it will be very interesting indeed to see how this goes down. If the Democrats don't mount a filibuster to end all filibusters to get this stopped, we could see a significant defection of a very large Democrat voting bloc.

"I'm willing to concede that to do the right thing."  Let me know when you need my vote, because we need to hear that sentiment more often.

Republicans may have retired some of the pro-trade Dems, but notable ones such as Mr. Kerry have flip flopped* on the issue.  For refrence purposes, here is the NAFTA Senate vote, 61-38.  The Nos were 28 Ds and 10 Rs.  The Yeas were 26 Ds and 35 Rs.  In the House, the vote was 234-200.  Rs split 132-43 and Ds split 102-156.  It's those 102 Ds who voted yea that I don't think enitrely disappeared.  Maybe (at the most) half are not around or lost their seats to Rs.  But it sounds like only a handful of Ds will vote yea in the House (5-10).  The Senate looks a bit better and I doubt a filibuster could be sustained.

* I couldn't resist...

because it hurts the Democrats?  What a cynical view of the world.

I'm pretty pro-free trade myself.  While I'm a little more circumspect with regards to the claimed benefits of NAFTA I don't see a viable alternative to free trade agreements.  Historically our most productive years where under open trade policies and some of our most sluggish periods were under restrictive trade policies.

I DO believe that the US should leverage these trade agreements to promote better worker's rights in countries that have little or no worker's rights.  Not because it "levels" the playing for our workers.  I believe that these agreements, particularly the Western Hemisphere agreements, will benefit us most by improving the buying power of Mexicans, Guatamalens, and Argentinians.  

Let me supplement that thought.  Union members often hold Republican views on social issues, foreign policy, and middle class economic issues such as taxes.  They, however, have seen Ds stand up for unions against "the man" for generations.  The reason we could win over more of this demographic by introducing CAFTA is not becuase it will win them over directly, but because they will see the last reason to vote D is no longer valid.  I doubt it will be in big numbers, but it could help in the upper midwest... assuming being the party of CAFTA doesn't hurt Rs directly by more than the indirect help of discrediting Ds on labor issues.

PS I count 26 Ds voting yea in the Senate and 102 in the House for NAFTA.

because it hurts the Democrats?  What a cynical view of the world.

I know it will shock you to hear this, but there are some of us for whom NAFTA has had absolutely zero and zilch impact on our everyday lives. Not all of us further have the time and energy to get riled up one way or the other about every single piece of legislation that comes down the line.

But we are riled up about certain things. Like abortion, for instance. And we've noticed that one particular party keeps standing in our way at every turn. So, when legislation piece X comes down the pipe that we don't care much for one way or the other, but we realize that it is a big old chisel, politically speaking, we grab our hammers and go to work on our obstacle.

It's called politics. Welcome to democracy.

the the environmental and labor protections in CAFTA both being worse than the status quo, how can this be a "free trade" agreement when the thing that the Latin American countries have that they would most like to sell in this country--sugar--will still be mostly blocked from American markets.  And you can bet by the time CAFTA makes it through Congress, those tiny increases in sugar imports allowed under CAFTA will disappear completely.

I share your concern for helping people move up the economic ladder in developing countries.  However, forcing regulations on a country is not the best way to do so.  One of the biggest problems in many developing countries is an overburdensome regulatory state that leads to corruption.  When a small business ($5000 a year or less) has to meet health requirements, minimum wage laws, and safety inspections, it usually leads to bribing each official or moving to the underground economy.  When the profit margins are so small, each bribe creates a large incentive to get out of the legitimate market.  And companies in the underground economy often can't get loans or grow their businesses.

I think exporting our developed world sense of government intervention onto countries that are generations behind in economic standing has held them back.  Its a good intention that has perverse side effects.  I would leave worker safety and health policy up to the country itself.  These are democracies and they can vote accordingly.  We shouldn't force our views on others.

The point is, that if union members feel that neither party is going to stand up for their issues, then they will move to their next tier of political concerns, which I think favors the Rs.

P.S. Just counted again and I still get 27. Oh well, the point is just as valid either way.

Unions started bolting for Reagan, if not before  We may have union lobbying and organizing muscle, but the rank and file ceased being monolithic well before NAFTA.

Moreover, where would they defect?  If the Democrats are 50-50 pro free trade and the Republicans are 90-10, why would they vote more Republican because of this issue?  They drift your way on the social issues, not the economic ones.  Do you think the Republican party "spits in your face" because it does not adhere strictly to your particular flavor of religious conservatism?  Parties aggregate interests and try to serve them, but there are times when the right thing to do is political unpopular, and yet must be done.  This is my fundamental disagreement with quite a few RedState posters, not to mention legions of Kossites.

Do you think the Republican party "spits in your face" because it does not adhere strictly to your particular flavor of religious conservatism?

Yes. And I offer you this as a primary instance of it.

I guarantee you, the Republican party makes me mad enough, I will go elsewhere - maybe not to the Democrats, but certainly third party. I realize that's just as efficacious as helping the Democrats, but I won't care, because I stand on principle. So, for the Democrats, it behooves them to attempt to drive wedges between elected officials and the base on hot-button issues like abortion, and they DO attempt it, from time to time.

Same principle goes for Democrats and union voters.

That would fall out of use as a catch-phrase for single-issue politics. Not only is it hyperbolic, it's also historically inaccurate in the analogy.

Defeating the Democratic party and creating more pro-life voters are two different things.  Will it be a win for you if you acquire more Republican voters, the majority of whom are pro-choice?  What will you do when "Republican outreach" continues to produce standard bearers like Giuliani and Schwarzenaegger?

Reagan's optimism and tough foreign policy started the movement.  Now about a third of union members vote R regularly.  I think we simultaneously posted, but I explain upthread how if labor issues are neutralized Rs could win over more union members on other issues: mainly foreign policy and social issues.

Unpopular, but right.  Yup, that takes a leader not a follower.  It may not be nice to point this out right now, but I believe that is what the President has done on a lot of issues: Social Security (the third rail), the Iraq War (under 50% support when he started ratcheting up rhetoric), and the possible stem cell veto.  I may not agree with him on #3 but he is willing to stick his neck out even when its unpopular.  Let me note that his endorsement of the FMA was just the opposite.

I hope I have your ability to agree to good policies under opposition rule.  I supported NAFTA under the Ds and I hope more Ds will crossover again.  Unpopular, but right.

about that prospect as well. However, the three Democrat voting constituencies that I'd like to see the Republican party most aggressively court (African-Americans, Hispanics and Union members), tend to be more pro-life than pro-choice.

Ideally, in this scenario, CAFTA drives a further wedge inbetween elected Democrats and some of their most dedicated liberal voters and they just stay home, or vote green.

These days, there are few rewards for working with the opposition party, particularly when I read the gleeful anticipation of wedging the crap out of us on this one.  I think I've seen you use the "carrying-the-snake-across-the-river" parable before.

It's easy for me to concede and do the right thing.  I'm not in office.  But I do mourn the loss of the centrist, economically mindful energy of Clinton and the old DLC.  I do not think the Senate will filibuster, not after the recent brinkmanship.  We have to lay in the tall grass and wait to see how hostile the president's next move might be.  Keep the powder dry, wait for the whites of their eyes and all that.

Considering that 22% of the "always illegal" segment of pro-lifers voted for Kerry and 26% of the "mostly illegal" voters voted for Kerry, my guess is many of those are union member types.  That is a guess, but an educated one.

Just for reference, 38% of union members voted for Bush.

That is the politics of myopia and polarity.  

The POINT of our government is to improve the well being of American citizens.  You and I may disagree with how to do that.  But winning political battles is NOT THE END.  It is simply a means to achieve an end.

And the fact that you bring up abortion in this context is disturbing.

that "you're either for us or against us," while certainly a perennial bipartisan motto, has been the watchword of the current administration.  Sometimes I think loyalty to the country has been conflated with loyalty to the party, or the president.

Leon, not to pick on you, but this discussion reminded me of your disturbing diary which I cite to as an example of the opposite position.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/6/13/151359/632

It's a Republican website and increasing our majority is part of that.  I would generally leave out strategy in my policy analysis, but it is a part of this community's purpose.

If Ds every become the party of small government and free trade, they could win me over.  I just see that as less and less likely.  If I could have voted, Clinton would have had my ear.  He was a true DLC moderate.  I would have given Lieberman a fair shot as well.  But I see demonization of the DLC from the Dems these days and it worries me.

If the partisanship in the Senate stays where it is now, then I must agree that any R is better than any D.  We don't have Miller, Breaux, or even Moynihan pushing for some issues that conflict with their leadership.  Even Nelson (D-NE) wasn't going to stop the judicial filibusters and none of the formerly moderate Dems have even sat down with the admin to discuss SS reforms.  I know the admin has been less welcoming since NCLB, tax cuts, and medicare so the blame is not just with Dems.  But moderates have been more partisan on the left recently.  Snowe, Collins, Chafee, and a few others keep voting against leadership... I don't see that happening with Dems, which is good or bad depending on one's perspective.

First off I certainly would not suggest that we require Panama to implement the same standards regarding worker's rights that the US enjoys.  That is an unrealistic objective.

However that doesn't mean that we can't begin to implement SOME standards.  Not all regulations cause  a net loss to a business.  There are many laws that have resulted in greater profits because businesses, which can be very shortsighted, are required to implement certain because quality of life assurances to their workers which in turn increase productivity of their workers.  

You're absolutely correct that we cannot impose developed world standards on these nations.  But I think it's also important to remember that the business owners ALSO are behind and don't understand many advanced management techniques.

The countries involved should determine their own regulations, just as we determine ours (obviously, any FT agreement will mandate certain rules among all parties, but my point is that we should keep them to the practical minimum).

From the aforementioned diary:

Now, I'm not one of those partisans that advocates Republican victory for the sake of Republican victory. If Republican victory starts to mean that which is bad for the nation, then I'm no longer in favor of Republican victory.

And further:

I've said before that I think that the next four years are the best shot we've got at getting Roe overturned. After that time, I'm willing to consider a move for the good of the country that would surely be a disastrous blow to the Republican party. After all, the country is more important than the party, and continued liberty is more important than victory.

And, I tried to further clearly indicate WHY I was writing the things that I did:

But in this instance, I don't think that's the case, because I still believe that there's a more important agenda even than the preservation of our country - the preservation of life, and specifically, the life of the unborn.

A million a year, Gengisdon. 40 million since 1973. I'm not asking you to agree, just to understand.

What if an abolitionist calculated how best to bring about the end of slavery and supporting things like CAFTA were part of that strategy.  Centuries later they would be applauded.  You may disagree with Leon, but he is doing what he can to stop what he sees as the mass killing of innocents.  If CAFTA is small beans to him in comparison, one could see why.

is not the point, but rather the popular understanding of it.  I only use it for one particular single issue.  I do not find it hyperbolic.  Single issue voting is an anethema to me, whether it be for my candidates and issues or against.

Plus, I count additional points for the phrase because it irks you, Thomas :-).

"Not all regulations cause  a net loss to a business.  There are many laws that have resulted in greater profits because businesses, which can be very shortsighted, are required to implement certain because quality of life assurances to their workers which in turn increase productivity of their workers."

This is a developed world mindset.  If you require a developing countries small business owner to pass health inspection twice a year, that means paying a hefty bribe each time.  It does not usually make things healthier, but it does cause corruption, hurt business, and slow growth.  Businesses making $5,000 or less a year are hit hard by bribes of $100 here and there.

Who are we to force these democratic countries to follow our idea of what is fair?  If they want to impose those limits on their own growth, they can.  We aren't stopping them.  But we shouldn't hold them down from afar.

but I can't sanction it.  You ask me to cut my nose off to spite my face.

This administration defines itself by the fact it will carry forward despite oppostion.  That alone does not define their issues as correct.  Your example of the stem cell issue underlines this point.  The fact that unions fear free trade iniatives adds nothing to the fact that it is the right thing to do, and in fact cautions that we should make doubly sure we do not do more harm than good.  

First off this comment is nothing more than ad hominem....

If they want to impose those limits on their own growth, they can.

Where did I say we should limit their growth?  I SPECIFICALLY said that some laws INCREASE growth.  

Secondly we AREN'T forcing them to do anything.  We are negotiating an AGREEMENT with them.  If they want to have unfettered access to OUR MARKETS they must adhere to certain rules.  It is no different than "forcing" them to agree to limit government intereference in the market.  

You are talking about SPECIFIC regulations(ie health inspections).  I am not. I don't know enough to say what would be appropriate pre-conditions.  But to say we don't have a right to do that is preposterous.  Of course we do.  Just as they have a right to sign the agreement or not.

that when you view everything through the prism of one issue, you begin to lose perspective.  Everything becomes ABOUT THAT issue and you are indifferent to potentially damaging implications of your support of other issues.

a million lives a year, I'll indulge myself.

businesses in Latin America.  For instance it severely restricts generic drug manufacturers in Latin America and prohibits them from making generic versions of patented American drugs.  Isn't this imposing a limit on the growth  of businesses in Latin America?  Aren't we just forcing "these democratic countries to follow our idea of what is fair"?

Why is it that "free trade" is good when it protects the interests of corporations and sugar farmers but if we start talking about adding protections for the environment and workers then suddenly it is harming the interests of small business owners in these developing countries?

I really wish people wouldn't use terms they weren't familiar with.

Ad hominem is not an attack, it is a logical fallacy that involves arguing against the person making the argument rather than the argument itself.

When I say, "You fool, you have no idea what ad hominem means," I've insulted you, but I haven't engaged in ad hominem because the insult was not the basis for refuting your argument.

Now, in Doverspa's post, the phrase you quoted was not only not ad hominem, it wasn't even really insulting.

The same also applies in other areas as well.

Remember one of the biggest blows the Soviet Union endured?  It was in 1985, when Reagan made a deal with the Saudis - they opened up the oil spigots big-time, and the result was the collapse of the Soviet Union without a major war because they couldn't het enough hard currency.  

That saved millions of lives, easily.

possible way a business owner can pass a health inspection is through the payment of a bribe then your claim that these are "democratic countries" we are dealing with is bogus.  A government that is so rife with corruption can not claim to be a "democracy" even if it has the trappings of one.

I used the wrong term.  Sometimes I write too quickly and use certain terms as short hand.  I didn't take his comment as insulting.

Doverpa's point was a poorly conceived syllogism.  Just because some regulation causes a restriction on growth doesn't mean that regulations CAUSE restriction on growth in all cases.  

It will be extrememly difficult to get the Southern States to go along with CAFTA.  We were hurt, very badly, by NAFTA and we haven't forgotton.  The wound is still tender.  

My county, alone, was devestated ny NAFTA.  Hundreds of jobs were lost as a result of small manufaturing plants closing and moving to Mexico.

No, we are nowhere NEAR ready to even talk about CAFTA.  

For instance it severely restricts generic drug manufacturers in Latin America and prohibits them from making generic versions of patented American drugs.  Isn't this imposing a limit on the growth  of businesses in Latin America?  Aren't we just forcing "these democratic countries to follow our idea of what is fair"?

You're dealing with an oversimplification.  What CAFTA prohbits is a government from create a compulsory license -- essentially, the government authorizes itself or a third party to make a generic version of a patented product, and determine the fee that it will pay to the patent holder.  It doesn't "prohibit" anyone from making generic drugs; it prohibits the governments of these countries from changing the scope of patent protection to suit what's politically popular, which, in effect, essentially voids their own patent laws [for we'd be talking about non-US patents in these cases].  

For free trade to work, companies must have a reasonable expectation that the laws of the countries with which they trade will be fairly applied to them.  Restricting compulsory licensing practices furthers that goal.  Moreover, the market price for the license to a patent in a particular country will be subject to that country's market conditions -- i.e., it will likely be higher than the compulsory license, but it probably won't be much higher.

Businesses in this country are subject to a raft of rules and regulations that both help and hinder them, limiting their liability, granting them patent rights, requiring to provide safe work places, negotiate with unions, etc.  When we write trade agreements it is all well and good to place burdens on the developing nations to require them to respect intellectual property rights, corporate structure, and other aspects of the business benefit end of regulatory/legal spectrum.  But if we start talking about the other aspects of the bargain we have made with businesses in this country, the ones that protect workers and the environment, we are suddenly overburdening these poor countries with regulations.  

Between requiring a country Y to apply its own laws equally to country X's citizens, and mandating that country Y adopt new laws A, B, and C.  The IP issues fall generally in the first camp; the laws you describe fall into the second.

Except that is almost universally true in developing countries.  The more regulations, the more the bribes, the more the corruption, the less the growth.  Compare Estonia and any African country and get back to me.

I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in developing countries... which may be why you shouldn't be making laws for them.

I'm not suggesting that we should place Western regulations on developing nations.  

But if you're going to tell me that passing a law that says that you cannot require your workers to work more than 60 hours a week is going to lower growth I strongly disagree.  You think that requiring BASIC safety requirements in factories is going to create corruption?  

Why am I supposed to compare Estonia and an African nation?  Are you suggesting that Estonia has less regulation than any African nation?  If so I would like to know how you come to this conclusion.  

Given Estonia's cozying up to the West and admittance to NATO and one day to the EU I find that VERY hard to believe.  

he hasn't lived in very many big cities in the US either it that is his criterion for a democracy.

First, yes, a 60 hour work week will lower growth and cause corruption.  Because people will continue to work more than that if that is what it takes to feed their family (as Americans did for many generations).  And yes "basic safey requirements" are often ignored and bribes are paid to get clearences.

Here's Estonia:

The Embassy of Estonia reports that the weighted average tariff rate in 2002 was 0.053 percent. Non-tariff barriers are virtually nonexistent.

The Ministry of Finance reports that Estonia has a flat income tax rate of 26 percent, which the government intends to reduce to 20 percent by 2006. The corporate tax on reinvested profits is 0 percent. In 2003, based on data from the central bank, government expenditures as a share of GDP increased 0.5 percentage point to 39 percent, compared to a 1.2 percentage point increase in 2002. On net, Estonia's fiscal burden of government score is 0.1 point worse this year.

Regulations in Estonia are transparent and evenly applied. Businesses face some bureaucratic hurdles, but procedures are far simpler overall than in other countries in the region. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, "The Government has set out transparent policies and effective laws to foster competition and establish clear `rules of the game.' However, due to the small size of Estonia's commercial community, instances of favoritism are not uncommon despite the regulations and procedures that are designed to limit it." It takes about 30 days to obtain a permit to start a business, reports the Embassy of Estonia, and some specific activities, such as mining, public utilities, production of alcohol and tobacco, gambling, and banking, require a license. The U.S. Department of Commerce reports that "surveys of American and other non-Estonian businesses have shown the issues of corruption and/or protection rackets are not an important concern for these companies."

And here is Kenya:

The World Bank reports that Kenya's weighted average tariff rate in 2002 (the most recent year for which World Bank data are available) was 14.4 percent. According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, "Non tariff barriers include the requirement to use a [government of Kenya] appointed inspection firm for imports. Some U.S. firms may find packaging and labeling requirements difficult to meet." Licensing requirements are similarly burdensome.

Kenya's top income tax rate is 30 percent. The top corporate income tax rate is 30 percent. In 2002, according to the World Bank, government expenditures as a share of GDP decreased by 2.5 percentage points to 23.8 percent, compared to a 0.6 percentage point increase in 2001. On net, Kenya's fiscal burden of government score is 0.3 point better this year.

Kenya's bureaucracy remains significantly burdensome. According to the Economist Intelligence Unit, "investors should be aware that the official register is in a deplorable state; it has never been computerized or properly updated." In 1999, the government updated the Local Government Act, creating what the EIU calls a "single business permit in place of a multitude of different licenses." The government gives local authorities "discretion to choose the appropriate schedule of fees to charge, depending on the size and level of development of the local authority concerned"; because of this discretion, however, businessmen complain that they sometimes have to "pay more for a single business permit than they have paid before for many trading licenses." The EIU further reports that "Ministry of Public Works [employees] demand the biggest bribes...."

My research field is development economics.  The differences between Estonia-like countries and Kenya-like countries are stark and important.  We should not force other countries into Kenya-like situations.  Both of those countries are democracies, they have chosen their governments.  Kenya even elected their first opposition party government a few years ago.  If Central American countries want to impose rules on themselves, go for it.  But we should not be forcing them to do so.

about what constitutes a democracy.  A government that is corrupt from top to bottom and depends on bribes to operate is hardly a democracy and any laws written in such a country are going to be pretty ineffective, so what's the point of a trade agreement since if small businessmen are going to have to pay bribes to survive so are large corporations (which by the way is illegal under U.S. law).  Seems before we even consider signing trade agreements with such countries we should be helping them clean up their governments, legal systems and civil services.

And yes Strieff, I grew up in Chicago.  I would hardly consider the Daley machine of the sixties and early seventies to be a model of democracy.  I live in New Orleans now and this city and state has its own sad history of political corruption.  Just because we have had a sordid political past in this country doesn't mean that we should shrug our shoulders and say, "well that's the way things are down there, deal with it."

it is you who either have strange ideas about democracy or you don't bother to read what you post. Sadly, having watched your commentary I've come to the conclusion that the latter case is most likely.

Doverspa is right. You just haven't got the experience to even comment on this subject.

First off...

First, yes, a 60 hour work week will lower growth and cause corruption.  Because people will continue to work more than that if that is what it takes to feed their family (as Americans did for many generations).  And yes "basic safey requirements" are often ignored and bribes are paid to get clearences

How does your second sentence follow from your first sentence.  Your 2nd sentence says that people will ignore these laws(which I suspect will be the case for the most part).  However you first statement claims it will increase corruption and lower growth.  If people will ignore these laws then how will they lower growth?  

You seem to be claiming that developing countries should be completely free of government oversight.    That's your choice.  I disagree.

How are we forcing any country to do anything?  Either they agree to the terms of our trade AGREEMENT or they don't.  

Let me be clear on this one more time.  I am not advocating the implementation of any rules.  What I AM saying is that it is not unreasonable for the  US to push for basic rights for workers in countries that provide no basic rights.  By doing this we can hope to push for these countries to begin to develop true middle classes.

You don't want to have regulations in countries we trade with? I can ship you candy sold in California

that has a multiple of lead content over the safe level of lead as determined by the EPA. Pat Buchanan is correct; NAFTA was detrimental to this country. Do you really want to have "free trade" with countries that do not care about the health of it's own citizens? They won't be caring about your kids.

Liberalization of trade is just that - a liberal position.

I really think our disconnect comes from you not knowing much about developing countries.  If that is true, I beg of you to learn either through reading or visiting them.

"If people will ignore these laws then how will they lower growth?"

People ignore the laws by going into the large underground/black/informal economy.  They run their business without paying taxes or passing any inspections.  But these businesses can't take loans or grow in any real capacity.  They remain the equivalent of a garage sale in scope.

"You seem to be claiming that developing countries should be completely free of government oversight.  That's your choice.  I disagree."

No I am claiming that it is their choice whether to regulate more or less based on their understanding of their economy.

"By doing this we can hope to push for these countries to begin to develop true middle classes."

Your causation is backwards.  Economic growth leads to a middle class that often demands regulation.  Regulation does not lead to a middle class that creates economic growth.  In America (and Europe and most other developed countries), we worked 80+ hour weeks.  We moved from farms to factories.  We slowly moved up the economic ladder and saved some money.  After a sufficient class of wage earners were in place, the middle class demanded certain protections from businesses.

We should not stifle the small businessmen in these developing countries.  Encouraging them with steady property rights and the incentive of profit would be the best decision for their governments to make.  But we should stay out of that decision.  Just as they should stay out of our decisions on those issues.

So now it's time to challenge my ability to discuss the matter.  So be it.

People ignore the laws by going into the large underground/black/informal economy.  They run their business without paying taxes or passing any inspections.  But these businesses can't take loans or grow in any real capacity.  They remain the equivalent of a garage sale in scope.

OK.  I'm certain that all these occur.  However since this was simply an EXAMPLE I cannot determine what precise impact it would have.  Each nation's economic conditions are different.  In some countries worker's rights are trampled on to the detriment of the nation and in others not as much.    To say that we cannot say we want to see certain laws enacted, however, is incongruent with virtually our entire foreign economic policy.

No I am claiming that it is their choice whether to regulate more or less based on their understanding of their economy.

ONE MORE.  It is their choice to do whathever they want.  It is OUR CHOICE to include in our negotiations certain requirements that we demand they meet before any agreement would be binding.  

In America (and Europe and most other developed countries), we worked 80+ hour weeks.  We moved from farms to factories.  We slowly moved up the economic ladder and saved some money.  After a sufficient class of wage earners were in place, the middle class demanded certain protections from businesses

That was a relatively short period of time.  Worker's rights were almsot immediately put into place after the metamorphisis from an agrarian to an industrial society.   While it took probably 30 years, and the end of the Lochner era, for many worker's rights laws to be fully enacted, many were almost immediately put into place.  

While regulations didn't create the wealth that created the middle class many of those regulations  DID ensure that the worker's received some of that wealth and that they would be able to enjoy that wealth to some degree.

We should not stifle the small businessmen in these developing countries.  Encouraging them with steady property rights and the incentive of profit would be the best decision for their governments to make.  But we should stay out of that decision.  Just as they should stay out of our decisions on those issues.

You make it sound like I am demanding that a US representative start writing legislation for these countries.  That simply isn't the case.

Today, June 17, marks the 75th anniversary of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that triggered the Great Depression of the 1930s. I won't go into too much here other than to point out some common sense notions.

The opposite of free trade is the tariff. Tariffs do not help the country that imposes them, and in fact they often hurt those industries that they are supposed to help. So if a tariff leads to the Great Depression (negative growth) then doesn't it reason that lowering tariffs (free trade) will promote growth.

And so it has

This argument that having environmental regulations, minmum wage, a work week limitation of some kind will hurt all these little entrepreneurs in developing countries.  

First of all those aren't the businesses people want to obey those rules.  People who want these kind of regulations want them to be followed by large multinational corporations that open big factories in developing countries like a Nike factory in China.  Or a tire plant in India.

The reasons are obviously partly based on self-interest (if it isn't so cheap and you can't pollute in the 3rd world then it isn't as attractive to open a factory there instead of in America) and partly because it is good to have some minimal workplace safety regulations, environmental pollution limitations, limits on exploitation of workers.

Unless someone actually pulls a Cato-the-Elder (E.g., "Finally, strawberries are the best fruit in the world because you can make strawberry shortcake out of them.  So, in conclusion, Carthage must be destroyed."), I'm in favor of retiring the phrase.*  

von

*Although, now that I think about it, maybe I should change my highly-pretentious Pericles-quoting sign off to "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam".

You and I have starkly different world views.  A government that is so corrupt that a business cannot pass an inspection without bribing an inspector, even if it is fully in compliance, is unworthy of calling itself a democracy, no matter how transparent its political system, although how such a thoroughly corrupt civil service could operate in a transparent political system is beyond me.

Now Doverspa above cited two examples of Estonia and Kenya but the problems that led to negative growth in Kenya seemed to have more to do with an incompetent, confused and contradictary bureaucracy with unclear and arbitrary standards rather than outright corruption.  Corruption was the concern I was limiting my comments to.

Doverspa also has a lot of faith in the ability of these nascent democracies to develop worker and environmental protections after their economies develop.  It took us well over 100 years to achieve the level of protections we enjoy in this country.  And much of that was before the rise of powerful multinational corporations that in many cases wield more economic power than the countries in which they are operating.  Rapid industrialization in Southeast Asia and the lessons of NAFTA certainly don't hold out a whole lot of hope for expanded worker and environmental protection.  

I agree that in general tariffs wind up hurting more than they help.

However, its worth noting that President Andrew Jackson was one of the few presidents ever to preside over our nation with a national SURPLUS so big that the extra money was disbursed to the states (who promptly wasted it).

So under the right circumstances, tariffs can benefit the country, but I think the examples are far and few between.  One particular case is, if your country has a monopoly on a particular resource that everyone needs, then tariffs aren't necessarily bad.

We currently run large trade deficits with Canada and Mexico, and have a large overall trade deficit. How is that a good thing?

I run about a $4000 trade deficit per year with my grocery store. You would think that they would buy something from me in exchange, or maybe open up to bartering. Wait a second, I trade them money for goods, am I out any value? I have traded $4000 worth of cash for $4000 worth of goods, hmmmmm maybe this deficit thing isn't really a good measure after all.........

you don't know much about.  Maybe you're a college student who is bombarded with protests but your understanding of MNCs is a bit skewed.  There are a few who actually practice things so bad that workers don't want to work for them but are forced (i.e. forced labor).  However the vast majority pay high wages (by local standards) and are extremely stable (again by local standards).  They are often the most sought-after jobs for those two reasons.  If you can make $100 a month (roughly $.50/hr) and know your job isn't disappearing in two weeks, you've got what passes for job security in much of the world.

I am headed out right now, but there is a world opinion poll from a year or two ago that polled on questions of globalization and MNCs.  The most positive reactions to both were from Africa, the least positive were from North America and Europe.  Take some time to go visit some of these countries and talk to them about what they want and need.  It isn't more regulation.  It's access to our markets (esp. agricultural) and steady, paying jobs.

Why would one need a tariff if they had a monopoly on an item?  By definition, no one else would have any of it so you couldn't import it.  Am I missing something?

If a developing country has a government (apparently it doesn't even have to be democratic since we do a whole lot of business with China) that U.S. MNCs feel secure enough to operate why am I being so pollyannaish?  That is they can operate and compete freely without paying bribes to host country government officials (which of course they would never do because that is against U.S. law).  Their intellectual, real property, and corporate rights are protected. Their executives are secure in their persons.  They can set up factories and presumably don't have to worry about local inspectors coming around every week to shake them down for bribes or pay protection money to the local mafia lest an unfortunate fire occur at the factory.  How on earth can you argue that added burden of environmental and safety standards will suddenly turn the government into one of a bunch of corrupt inspectors crawling all over the business and driving everyone onto the black market?  

If all these conditions are present, why shouldn't we in our trade agreements, include at least minimal environmental, safety and labor standards.  After all, these factors often figure into the decision to relocate a plant.

Your expertise may lie in the economics, mine is in environmental control (typical leftist you say).  I am far from an earth first tree hugger and consider myself a pragmatist.  And yes I have visited the third world and Eastern Europe.  Our industrialization did severe damage to the environment and to the health of people.  Over the years we were able to develop methods to mitigate much of the negative impact that heavy industry has on the environment and people's health.  If a corporation decides to move its already profitable plant from El Paso to Juarez just to avoid the environmental and worker safety laws (not to mention seek lower pay for its blue collar workforce) then what possible explanation is there other than pure greed?  Some altruistic urge to improve the lot of the Mexican workers just doesn't seem to hold water.    

I think you're right in general, tariffs are usually on imported goods, although they can be on exported goods as well, which is what I was thinking of at the time when I was trying to imagine a scenario where tariffs would actually work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff

However, the real flaw in what I said was that it neglected to mention the possibility of starting a trade war over OTHER goods, which would weaken the effect of the tariff on the monopoly good.

Democrat supporter and actor DiCaprio's beau is supporting Cafta - see the photo..

http://satire.myblogsite.com/blog

Do you think they will divorce?

Friedman and Schwartz argue that it was this drop in the money supply that strangled the economy. I agree.

 "By elevating wages in low-wage countries, CAFTA will, in the long run, reduce the incentive for illegal immigration.  (This is aside and apart from the fact that it is a good thing to enact policies that elevate the wages of the desperate poor.)"

This has not happened anywhere yet.  Wages have been elevated in China, but there is still rampant illegal immigration from China, the fastest growing economic power in the world. NAFTA was supposed to have an adverse impact on illegal immigration, and it got worse. It would take fifty years of economic prosperity in Latin America to eliminate illegal immigration.  

"CAFTA will expand the market for our high-wage goods and services:  Thus, jobs created are not only likely to be more numerous than the jobs lost, but they will also pay better."

What high-wage goods and services are left?  Almost everything,

including computer technology, has been "outsourced." If CAFTA countries become affluent enough to buy autos, electronic equipment, appliances, computers, telephones,etc., who will really  be producing them?  Perhaps, our multi-national corporations, but not our workers! If they buy industrial equipment, it will be to take advantage of "cheap labor" and

no environmental/governmental regs.

There may be good justifications for CAFTA.  But, these are

really a joke!

" I have traded $4000 worth of cash for $4000 worth of goods, hmmmmm maybe this deficit thing isn't really a good measure after all......... "

A purchase at a grocery has nothing to do with trade deficits... unless most of the products are imported, or you have to borrow  the $4K to pay for groceries because you lost your job due to "outsourcing" or imported illegal "cheap labor."