Gov. Dean's position on free trade (pro-fair trade)

[w4rma]

...
HOWARD DEAN: No. What I said-- Well, I'll tell you what I said in a minute. But I'll follow my train of thought here, most briefly. Free trade has benefited Vermont a great deal. Here's the problem with free trade, and here's why I support fair trade, and why I want to change all our trade agreements to include human rights with trade, as Jimmy Carter included human rights with foreign policy. I still think NAFTA was a good thing. I think the president did the right thing. But the problem now is that, 10 years into NAFTA, here's what we've done. We have shipped a lot of our industrial capacity to other countries. And the ownership pattern, and the ratio of reward between capital and labor in those other countries is what it was 100 years ago in this country.

So the reason for NAFTA is not just trade. It's defense and foreign policy. That is, a middle class country where women fully participate in the economic and political decision making of that country is a country that doesn't harbor groups like Al-Qaeda, and it's a country that does not go to war. So that's in our intersect. That's why trade is really in our long term interest. What we've done so far in NAFTA is we've transferred industrial capacity, but we haven't transferred any of the elements that are needed to make a middle class. The truth is, the trade union movement in this country built America, not literally-- Well, they did do it literally with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building, and things like that. But they built America because they allowed people who worked in factories and mines to become middle class people. And America was the strongest country on earth, and still is, because we have the largest middle class on earth, with democratic ideals. That is, working people in this country, by and large, feel that this is their country, and they have a piece of the pie, and it matters what they think.

Now, if you want trade to succeed, ultimately, we're going to have to create a climate in other countries that are beneficiaries of NAFTA where they can create a middle class with democratic ideals. That means we should not have any free trade agreements, and we should go back and tell the WTO that "you need also to include environmental standards and labor standards." Here's why. Today, if you run a factory in Iowa-- Let's suppose you spend a million dollars a year disposing of all the waste products that come out that are toxic. You can go to another country and dump all that stuff in the river and on the ground. So America, because we have environmental standards, and we're willing to trade, straight out, free trade, with countries that it's cheaper by a million dollars, before you even get to wages, to do business there, I think that's a big problem. We're essentially saying, "Our environmental laws are strict. It's cheaper for you to go into business someplace lese. Go ahead." That's the wrong thing to do.

The same with labor standards. I don't know why we should be shipping our jobs offshore when kids can work 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for a small amount of wages. And isn't that what America fought against 100 years go? Wasn't that the victory of the trade union movement? So it seems to me that my position makes sense. We've gone through 10 years of free trade. We've gotten to a position where we now need to change our trade agreements.
...
http://www.jfklibrary.org/forum_dean.html

[hedda_foil]

1. I think this part is very important too.

HOWARD DEAN: What I would say is, we've gone the first mile. The first decade has worked, for exactly the reasons you say. I don't disagree with the premise of the free traders. I had this discussion with Bob Rubin, and I said, "Here's the problem. We need an emerging middle class in these countries, and we're not getting one. So now is the time to have labor and environmental standards attached to trade agreements." He said, "You're totally wrong. I can't disagree with you more." I said, "How would you address the problem?" I haven't heard back. You have to deal with this problem. It's a serious problem.

JOE KLEIN: What if they say no?

HOWARD DEAN: Then I'd say, "Fine, that's the end of free trade."

JOE KLEIN: What do you mean, that's the end of free trade? Then we slap tariffs on these countries?

HOWARD DEAN: Yes.

JOE KLEIN: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

HOWARD DEAN: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen. I'm serious.

[IrateCitizen]

5. Hmmmm... Bob Rubin doesn't believe in fair trade!?!?

What a shocker! :eyes:

I like a lot of the things Dean is saying on this issue, although I somewhat disagree with his take on NAFTA. NAFTA had mechanisms inserted directly into it to prevent any sort of real economic growth from taking hold (the ban on technology transfers springs to mind). But he's right, that we need to use these big international institutions to help further labor rights and environmental protection in less developed nations, along with promoting REAL economic growth, and not just GDP growth coupled with falling standards of living.

[Ponderer]

52. How do you define standards of living?

That term is very vague

[ulysses]

2. works for me

I'm not sure why he would say NAFTA was a good thing, given its mighty problems, but I'll chalk that up to equal parts "hey, it was a start on this thing" and campaigning to the economic center. :) Frankly, it's more than I expected on this particular front from Dean, and I like it very much.

Thanks, Rick.

[trogdor]

6. Correct me if I'm full of it...

...but isn't NAFTA limited to the U.S., Canada, and Mexico? This is how I feel about NAFTA:

1. A prosperous Mexico is in the national interest, since we share a huge border. There aren't enough Mexicans to really screw up our economy all by themselves. Wanna worry about labor competition from the Third World? Worry about China. While you're at it, worry about India, especially if you're an IT professional. This is what Dean is talking about, IMO.

2. Unfettered trade with Canada is in our mutual interest. We're the best next-door neighbors on Earth, they're more or less in our league (with 1/10 our population), and it makes little sense to be restricting trade along our northern border.

[ulysses]

11. specifically, yes

"NAFTA" has become the catchword for overall trade liberalization to the benefit of corporations over workers. Southeast Asia is also very much affected by all this.

Canada doesn't offer the kind of wage disparity - so popular with the CEO class - that the developing world does. I have much less problem with unfettered trade on that axis. Actually, I don't have any problem with freer trade on any axis you can name in the world, as long as it's fair.

[IrateCitizen]

16. NAFTA was never meant to make a prosperous Mexico

It was meant to provide US (and Canadian) companies with free access to cheap Mexican labor and low environmental standards. For a few proofs of this:

1. NAFTA banned technology transfers. This was a primary factor in the growth of the "Asian tiger" economies. Without it, Mexico would be stuck forever as a mere assembler of parts, without the means to help develop its own native industries in manufacturing and high-tech, as Japan and S. Korea did.

2. NAFTA had strict "intellectual property" protections. This ensured that US and Canadian companies could exercise near-monopolies on their technological advances within Mexico.

3. NAFTA required that Mexico repeal Article 27 of its constitution, which guarantees the right to communal ownership of land. This resulted in hundreds of thousands of rural farmers being thrown off their land, land that was coveted by US and Canadian-based agribusiness and timber. The side benefit was a further-saturated labor pool in the manufacturing trades, driving down wages.

4. Investor-state clause. This one is the real kicker, essentially allowing corporations to do business without any risk of reprimand -- unless the state is willing to pay for it.

I agree with you that a more prosperous Mexico is in everybody's best interest, in the long term. It's just that NAFTA was never really designed to provide that -- it was just meant to help increase profit margins for large corporations.

[sangh0]

3. Very DLC-ish

This is classic "Third Way" rhetoric.

[ulysses]

4. it is?

I must have missed the memo in which Al From invoked Jimmy Carter by way of insisting on the recognition of human rights in economic treaties...

[sangh0]

10. That's what happens

when you don't pay attention.

[ulysses]

12. then perhaps

you could point out the instance.

[sangh0]

18. Who is attracted by a "pro-NAFTA" position?

Does being in favor of NAFTA attract money and votes from minorities? How about homosexuals? You think they're attracted to a pro-NAFTA politician?

Labor? I don't think so.

Feminists? Liberals? Think again.

When a politician takes a pro-NAFTA position, who is that pol trying to seduce?

Hint: The same group the DLC is trying to seduce

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

21. *very* good point, sangh0

You hit the nail on the head right there. If you have a politician pushing NAFTA and the rest of the corporate trade agreements, they are getting paid too, or trying to get paid for it.

I don't hear the NAACP pushing for NAFTA, I don't hear NOW or any LGBT groups asking for NAFTA, and I know that unions sure as hell aren't.

So who exactly is Dean working for here? Certainly not me.

[Nederland]

22. Who is attracted?

People like me.

And whether you believe it or not sangha, there are a lot of people like me who believe trade that is not free cannot be fair.

[sangh0]

25. So Dean is going for the Nederland vote?

Is that how his pro-NAFTA position is explained?

[Nederland]

36. Not just me

As I specifically said in my post:

And whether you believe it or not sangha, there are a lot of people like me who believe trade that is not free cannot be fair.

I simply don't believe that a person's access to a market should be restricted based upon their nationality. Trade between nations should be completely free, and each nation should decide for themselves what their labor standards should be. The US has no business imposing its standards on the rest of the world simply because our position as the largest market in the world gives us the ability to do so.

Take your argument to its logical conclusion. You believe its not "fair" to allow poor Chinese people to produce and sell goods to rich Americans because their labor costs are lower. If this is true, why is it "fair" to allow poor people from Mississippi to produce and sell goods to rich New Yorkers?

You see, there will always be differences in labor costs in different areas, and market forces will cause economic activity to shift accordingly. The fact that certain areas are seperated by completely arbitrary lines called national boundaries is irrelevant. To say otherwise is to engage in jingoism plain and simple.

[sangha]

47. You've got the wrong guy, Nederland

I don't think this issue is based on what's "fair". To bo honest, I wasn't really looking to debate the merits of free trade. I was more interested in what the various candidates positions tell us about how the candidate will govern, which is why I look to see who benefits from a candidates position.

I know that there are more individuals who, like you, support free trade. However, I don't see that group as being very large, or having much effect on the 2004 elections.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. Why do you want me fired Nederland?

You can't show any solidarity for your fellow Democrats?

I'm all for trade - why should US corporations get to move jobs to other countries strictly to lower my wages?

No one is proposing to end trade, we all love trade. The question is who gets to decide these issues? Our democratic government, or unaccountable corporations and their CEOs?

Democrats better not screw us again on this issue, if you don't want to see the Green party bigger and more unions like the Teamsters making deals with Republicans. This issue will make the Democrats the minority party forever. I wouldn't it I were you.

[sangh0]

29. That's a cheap shot

I'm sure you could make your point without making baseless personal attacks against another DUer.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. Cheap maybe? Accurate, yes?

My job and my entire career is directly threatened by these corporate trade agreements. I am in serious jeapardy of having my living standard cut in half or more by these agreements.

I take this issue as seriously as some people take reproductive choice and gay rights. I demand solidarity from fellow Democrats, or you lose my vote. It's a simple as that.

[w4rma]

31. That wasn't a personal attack, sangh0

However, it was an attempt to personalize the issue. I think there are some folks who need to see how the positions they push affect others, such as policies that get other folks laid off.

[Nederland]

37. Why do you want my uncle fired WhoCountsTheVotes?

You see, my uncle works for a multinational in Thailand that exports to the US. If you impose tariffs on countries like Thailand because they have lower labor standards, he'll probably be out of a job.

Are you more important than him? Is your job more important than the job of some poor person in the third world? Please explain this concept to me, because I thought that Democrats believed that we should all be treated equally, regardless of race or national origin.

[w4rma]

40. Does your uncle vote in U.S. elections? Is he a U.S. citizen?

Should U.S. policy benefit U.S. voters or Thailand citizens? Can't it do both? Does the current "free trade" policy even benefit Thailand citizens, since it not only allows their government *no* incentive not to oppress their citizens, but it gives their government an incentive TO oppress their citizens.

[Nederland]

41. Response

No, he doesn't vote in US elections, he is a Thai citizen. As for whether or not The Thai government oppresses its citizens, I and all of my Thai family would say that the Thai people can take care of themselves without the likes of you and your dubious claims of "helping" them.

If you don't like the trade policies that people like Bill Clinton pioneered, perhaps you should consider voting for Pat Buchannan. His "America First" stance seems natural fit for people like you.

[w4rma]

42. That multinational doesn't gives a !@#$ about your uncle, Nederland

I assure you that if a better opportunity opens in this "free trade" market that you want to promote, that multinational will dump your uncle without a moment's notice and would currently not have any problem at all with using violence to prevent your uncle from unionizing since he isn't protected from this (although he would be more protected under proposed "fair trade" changes from a President Howard Dean). Also, the current free trade agreements make it extremely hard for folks in Thiland to convince their government to allow unions, since multinationals WILL leave the area once a union is formed since they are only their for the cheap labor, anyway.

I think you know this. And I think that your position on free trade will, in the long term, hurt your uncle and folks in a similar position as him.

Also, note that I am quite happy in the Democratic Party, the party of the middle and lower classes.

[Nederland]

45. LOL

My uncle owns the multinational.

He runs a plastic modeling factory business with a factory in Bangkok and sales offices in Singapore, Shanghai, and LA. That factory employs about 30 people and he does business mostly with Honda. And before you accuse him of being some rich exploiter of the working class you should know that although by Thai standards he is fairly well off, by American standards most would consider him middle or upper middle class.

[w4rma]

46. Does he allow his employees to unionize?

Does he give a !@#$ about them? I said before that that multinational is there for the cheap labor, only. Am I wrong? How well are his employees paid? How do things work over there, Nederland? If he wanted to, does he have the *freedom* to allow his employees to unionize and stay in buisness under the current race to the bottom, "free trade" rules?

I want to see the rules of the "game" changed so that folks like your uncle don't need to race to the bottom for the cheapest labor to stay in buisness. Note that if things are done correctly, your uncle won't lose his buisness if "fair trade" rules are put in place. He'll have to reorganize it to meet the new rules, but since everyone is playing by the same rules, the competition won't be any tougher.

[Nederland]

49. You assume much

...for a person who I'm guessing has never been to Southeast Asia. Be honest with yourself--has most of you knowledge about life and working conditions there come from reading one sided idealogical tombs railing against globalization, or has it come from first hand experience like mine?

Does he allow his worker to unionize? I have no idea, but I will ask him. I suspect it doesn't matter too much, because what he did tell me was that his biggest problem was turnover. Often times he will take an untrained worker off the street and teach him how to operate the machinery. Once they have some experience under their belt, they quit and move on to a higher paid job. Its called competition w4rma, and it works. There are hundreds of places for skilled factory workers to gain employment in the big cities like Bangkok, and they have little problem finding work. As a result, they have the upper hand in negotiating with management. You simply can't afford to pay a good worker a shitty wage when they can take off and work someplace else at the drop of a hat. The whole "race to the bottom bullshit" is exactly that--bullshit. The proof of that comes from the observation that wages in most of Southeast Asia have been rising fairly steadily for the last thirty years. True, they may fall now that competition from China has begun in earnest, but in time wages there will rise and the playing field will be level again.

Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against unions and I think they did a great service to workers in the US. The problem is that you have a US centric view of life and can't conceive of things being different. Whether or not you believe it, South East Asia is not like the US was a hundred years ago. Unlike the US around that time, there are no huge monopolies that control everything. As a result, unions are far less necessary than they were in this country. Free trade and plentiful competition prevent companies from taking advantage of workers.

[w4rma]

53. From your boldfacing, I have to assume you skipped this part of my post

He'll have to reorganize it to meet the new rules, but since everyone is playing by the same rules, the competition won't be any tougher.

[Nederland]

58. Response

I guess my point was that with sufficient competition, unions are unnecessary. Why would a worker want to pay the overhead of a union if competition gives them the same benefits?

[w4rma]

62. If he's still in buisness and turning a profit

and his employees are still in buisness and are being treated better with better pay then isn't this good for everyone? The competition is still there between buisnesses (unless one buisness grows too big and starts buying out the others to gain more monopolistic power). And don't workers need a place they can go to get information on how various buisnesses are run and try to work out a consensus on how they feel that those buisnesses can improve and work towards that?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

61. I don't want the US to be anything like Thailand

The truth comes out. Your uncle owns the company. By Thai standards, you're rich. You "don't know" if your uncle ALLOWS the workers to organize. You'll get back to us on that one.

Does your uncle allow them to use the bathroom when they need to? Do they get slapped around a little if they're not working fast enought? Get back to us, alright.

I sure as hell don't want your sex industry either, and there is NO WAY that I'm going to let you take my sister's job and put her in the position that you put your women in.

No thank you.

[redeye]

56. Agreed

I see no difference between discriminating in favor of American citizens and discriminating in favor of straight white males. Further, Dean's stance is that human rights should be linked to trade, i.e. governments should be given economic incentives to be more democratic and liberal.

[hedda_foil]

8. Anything but. The DLC would DIE at the thought of tarrifs.

Then we slap tariffs on these countries?

HOWARD DEAN: Yes.

JOE KLEIN: So you'd be in favor of tariffs at that point.

HOWARD DEAN: If necessary. Look, Jimmy Carter did this in foreign policy. If you can't get people to observe human rights, and say that we're going to accept products from countries that have kids working no overtime, no time and a half, no reasonable safety precautions-- I don't think we ought to be buying those kinds of products in this country. We're enabling that to happen. I'm serious.

[sangh0]

14. Not true

The DLC's position is also to reject trade treaties if they're not good ones, and that mean continuing with tariffs. The only people who are dead-set against tariffs are those who are willing to accept any treaty regardless of it's conditions.

IOW, "nobody".

[IrateCitizen]

9. I disagree

Bob Rubin is much more DLC-ish on this issue than Dean (see the first post above).

What Dean is proposing sounds much like what George Monbiot has been saying lately -- that in order to help usher in a more equal and fair global order, we need to use the international institutions that are currently out there to advance our agenda.

Demanding labor rights and environmental protections in trade agreements at the threat of withdrawl is definitely not DLC-ish. The DLC way on trade was more of the same as the Republicans -- trade deals are not the time nor place for such sticking points.

[sangh0]

20. Unconvincing

Demanding labor rights and environmental protections in trade agreements at the threat of withdrawl is definitely not DLC-ish

Actually, that is EXACTLY the DLC's position. It was Clinton's (a DLCer) position, and it was Gore's (another DLC-er) position. "Free trade" is meant to appeal to corporate interests. No other Dem interest group is fighting in favor of free trade.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

17. Yes, very DLC, very "third-way"

Instead of taking a strong pro-worker, anti-corporate position, he is giving us nice political rhetoric.

They are putting all the power in the hands of the corporations, and saying "don't worry, we won't let them pollute too much or use slave labor".

The end result? Corporations have more power, and workers have less. Trade and tariffs aren't even the main issue - it's who gets to decide.

I want these decisions made by the democratic process, not by unaccountable CEOs and boards of directors.

If this is a big issue for you like me, the only logical choices are Gephardt or Kucinich, who are on record as being pro-worker.

[ulysses]

33. it is indeed

but this is where I start following the "pragmatic" line in regards to the primaries. I like Kucinich a great deal, but I just don't think he's got the most remote prayer, at least here in GA. Same with Gephardt, and I've got serious problems with him regarding the invasion of Iraq anyway. I've wavered some in my support of Dean recently, but this pretty much seals the deal.

Even if Dean wins, and even if he does everything he says, we'll still have a lot of battles to fight. I'm ok with that. That he's even talking about the issue (all due credit again to the fact that Dennis is in the race), and talking about reform, is a plus.

[Nazgul35]

51. i hate to burst your bubble....

at the cost of being flamed....but all things union are not good...unions also have problems...how much are the heads of the AFL-CIO earning while their membership is having jobs cut and losing wages...I was involved in a union drive in the late 80s (I was the Vice chair, Senator and shop steward....was a small unit), the end of the Reagna years and the newspaper guild hadnt had a new unit in something like fifteen years...they got us...held on for a year, used us for PR, and moved on to two large dailies leaving us high and dry with no union (we were decertified).

The result...unions are not always good for all circumstances...many times unions inflate the number of employees necessary to do the job, break up the job (ever heard of the phrase "that's not in my job description...")...many times union officials make deals with management that leaves the rank and file out on a ledge...

This is not to say that corporations are all good...things should be approached with a more nuanced understanding that looks at things on a case by case situation...not a one size fits all either NAFTA or AFL-CIO...

[w4rma]

55. That is called corrpution

And, I think that there is probably a problem with that in many unions, also. The members have to always be on the lookout for corrpution in the union, the corporation they work for and the political parties.

Actions speak louder than words and it can be tough sometimes to catch a con-artist and prove it to everyone else.

[ulysses]

7. here's another thought

This is why I like having Kucinich in the race. His position on NAFTA acts as both cover for, and a goad to, Dean. Who knows? Maybe we'll even get a national discussion worthy of the name out of this yet. :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

13. Dean SUPPORTS sending US jobs overseas

Dean supports allowing US corporations to fire American workers and replace them with cheap labor overseas. Dean supports the voodoo economics that says this is "good for the economy".

In fact, Dean is such a right-winger on this issue that he's even come up with a novel excuse - "defense" - saying that if we don't send jobs overseas, other countries will become terrorists and attack us.

Even a lot of Republicans support putting environmental and labor agreements in these "free trade agreements", what Dean is proposing is hardly radical or pro-workers. I'd suggest reading this entire article. The point is Dean supports the corporations over the workers on the biggest economic issue of my lifetime. I will not vote for him.

I will vote for one of the candidates that are on record for American workers - that means Gephardt and Kucinich.

[lastliberalintexas]

26. Baloney

That's not Dean's position, and if you would actually read the material above, you might see that.

edited to re-phrase and renove attitude :)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. Yes, it is Dean's position

I have read that entire article a number of times, and Dean is explicit. He says jobs transfers are necessary due to defense.

I don't think the US government should lower our living standards in order to build up other countries living standards. Dean has taken the anti-worker position on this issue.

Since this is the biggest economic issue of my lifetime, I will vote for someone who takes my side. That is not Dean. That is Gephardt or Kucinich.

Dean's wrong on this issue, and it's too big to ignore.

[redeye]

15. Right-on!

And I had doubts about Dean vs. Kucinich who opposes NAFTA...

[Nederland]

19. The Problem With "Fair" Trade

Trade deals inherently involve a catch-22. If you honestly believe its important to create a viable middle class in third world countries (as Dean says he does), you have to give businesses an incentive to build factories there. However, If there is an incentive for businesses to build factories overseas, there must also be an incentive against building them here in the US. You simply cannot have it both ways--either its in a business's best interest to have its factory in the US or its not. You cannot encourage the creation of a middle class in the third world without expecting to take some sort of economic hit here at home.

[buddhamama]

24. build the middle class in other ways

education is consistently left out of trade talks.

i just started my research into this so i don't have any working plans as of yet, but it needs to be addressed.

[sangh0]

27. The problem with your argument

Though it is, IMO, perceptive of you to notice that there are two sides to this, and that both sides have some valid arguments, I would suggest you consider the possibility that those who are in favor of NAFTA (and other free trade treaties) are not doing it in order to raise the standard of living in 3rd world nations, as demonstrated by the fact that none (to my knowledge) of the NGO's devoted to world poverty is fighting for free trade agreements.

[Nederland]

39. Fighting Poverty?

I suppose you don't think the World Bank fights poverty?

Take a look and educate yourself:

"In 2002 the World Bank provided $19.5 billion to developing countries and worked in more than 100 developing economies, bringing finance and/or technical expertise toward helping them reduce poverty."

Source: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTABOUTUS/0,,pagePK:43912~piPK:36602,00.html

FYI, 19.5 billion dollars is more money than any other NGO. I suppose you don't want to include the World Bank simply because you are ideologically opposed to the way that the World Bank chooses to fight poverty.

[sangha]

48. No, I don't think the World Bank fights poverty.

I think they help us further our national interests. I might have a problem with the way they fought poverty if only they would actually fight poverty.

[Nederland]

50. The World Bank

has done more to fight global poverty than any other organization in history. Those who say otherwise are kneejerk anti-capitalists and/or simply ignorant. Take a look at my link and you can read countless examples of projects that the World Bank funded that made real differences in the lives of poor people across the global. It has certain done far more than the empty promises of the far left preaching the inevitable socialist revolution ever did.

Here is the Bank's Operational Policy on Poverty Reduction:

http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/wbactivities/op_2.htm

Please tell me, what parts of it are you opposed to?

[w4rma]

54. frontline: the crash - unraveling the 1998 global financial crisis...

This five minute clip tracks the story of Thailand's meltdown and how it ignited the Asian financial crisis and led to the 1998 global panic.

The clip starts just after this FRONTLINE report shows that what helped set in motion the Thai crisis was the decision by the 7 richest nations, "The G-7," to increase the dollar's value to the yen. It wasn't long before currency instability followed and the global financial speculators moved in on Thailand...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crash/

the crash - the imf, the world bank & their critics

The World Bank is a development institution set up to lend money and help promote economic and social programs in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund oversees member nations' monetary and exchange rates and administers a pool of money from which member nations can borrow when in trouble.

How Stanley Fischer, Jeffrey Sachs, David Rothkopf, Jeffrey Garten and William Greider assess the IMF's performance in the Asian financial crisis (excerpted from the full FRONTLINE interviews.)
...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crash/imf/

[sangh0]

59. The parts I don't like

is the overall strategy that puts our interests above the plight of world poverty. While the WB is not an unadulterated source of evil, and it has run some helpful projects, looking at only those pgms that fit your description of the WB, while ignoring their other programs and policies (such as the "austerity" measures it pushes) leads to an unbalanced conclusion.

And once again, I am not terribly interested in arguing the merits of free trade. You could provide scientific PROOF that you are 100% correct about the benefits of free trade, globalization, the WB, etc and that still wouldn't show that these issue are going to play a big role in how individual citizens vote in 2004.

[IrateCitizen]

60. Boy, you are deluded, Nederland!

I guess by your definition, Former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Laureate in Economics Joseph Stiglitz is a knee-jerk anti-capitalist! :eyes:

The link you have provided contains a bunch of grand platitudes and empty language, nothing more. In fact, that is pretty much all that the WB and IMF have provided for the world's poor over the past 20+ years, except for a shaft.

The World Bank has done PLENTY to actually entrench poverty through its top-heavy development projects that destroy communities and increase fossil fuel dependency. If you think that the WB is a grand poverty-fighting institution, you are even more blinded to the mindless devotion to "infallable" markets preached by the likes of Hayek and Friedman than I previously thought.

Of course, I'm much more of a fan of Keynes/Galbraith myself, so it stands to reason that I'd find your icons to be completely full of bunk. ;-)

[buddhamama]

23. this is a good start

Dean has surprised me here.

[jos]

32. NAFTA is not just about trade people

Chapter 11 of NAFTA if a dagger pointed at the heart of democracy. It allows companies to seek compensation for foreign economic and social legislation. It takes away a country's ability to democratically decide what economic regulations it chooses to enact by potentially making it prohibitively expensive to do so.

These so-called "free trade" agreements are a lot more than trade. They seek to weaken the ability of the people to restrict the machinations of the market.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. excellent point

I don't think people understand this yet. It's not about trade, which everyone supports, it's about the power of democratically elected government to regulate corporations.

Corporations should not be exempt from the law.

[aneerkoinos]

38. Wonderfull!

If Dean becomes President, and is serious about this, he canwork together with EU and others to promote fair trade through WTO, democratize WTO and other institutions and give NAFTA some political aspects after EU model.

Gravest mistake left can do is to be nationalistic, protectionist and unsolidaric. The true spirit of left is internationalism and humanism, and fair trade is no enemy of those values.
What Dean is saying is not stinking third way corporate ass kissing policies of Blair but actually closer to Lula, not about adjusting TO globalisation like blairites but adjusting globalization to serve the needs of the people. It would actually crack me up to see "capitalist" US and EU demand that "communist" China allows free trade unions if it want's to stay in WTO!

Now, if Dean came on board to support Tobins tax, that would be more than perfect! (what is his position, btw?)

[jos]

43. I'm not even sure Kucinich supports

the Tobin tax. And I really doubt Dean does. Unfortunately, right now, it's too radical for the American political spectrum. I understand that in Canada the NDP is strongly in support, and even some members of the Liberal party support it.

[aneerkoinos]

44. Could Dean support it?

Reading what he's saying gives impression he's free and independent thinker with principles, vision and a brain of his own. Could it be that presented with the idea under certain circumstances he might come to support it at least in principle? Too much hopefull thinking?

Should someone ask him?

[redeye]

57. Right-on!

If you don't mind, I'll plagiarize some of what you wrote next time the topic comes... There's a difference between fair trade, e.g. forcing Starbucks to pay livable wages to coffee farmers, and protectionism, e.g. not allowing corporations to hire non-Americans when there are Aemricans qualified for the job.