|
we are doing that right now.
as to the remark of:
The debate between laissez-faire capitalism and the creation of a social safety net that occurred on the national level will be replicated at the global one. Already, with trade agreements linked to human rights and environmental agreements, there is a basis for the international enforcement of this safety net.
recent trade agrements from congress have stripped any such linkages of trade to human rights, unionization, and envirnomental issues. so we are moving away, rapidly, from that position as a people today.
any talk about using globalization to ensure wealfare is moot. globalization is not being driven by governments but by corporations who seek the lowest costs for plying their trade.
while i would agree that in the long run globalization has the potential to spread the wealth, i doubt it will happen unless government steps in to ensure profitability to corporations who abide by agreements linked to human rights and environmental issues.
rather i would prefer a US position on trade akin to using trade as a weapon for national survival. this is the antithesis of globalization, and one that focuses ensuring employment for workers in the US.
I would be hard put to attempt convince an unemployed american steel, or high tech worker globalization is better for them and their family than state sponsored and driven mercantilism.
of course, this is anathema to corporations who would rebell at any national economic policy and the potential loss of freedom to move capital.
but we see a form of intra-state mercantilism already in the US (itself a "free-trade" zone according to the commerce clause of the US constitution) and do not recognize it. states compete amongst themselves and give tax credits to seduce coroporations to re-locate. states fund schools and build infrastructure. all of these are attempts to bolster employment and the tax bases of their communities.
so, with the idea of linking trade to worker and human rights, and the environment, one has to appreciate that the aforementioned can not be the only factors negotiated in any such agreements. subsidies to the US steel industry for tax credits to buy new equipment is no different than a state subsidy to put a computer in front of every school child, because both affect economic vitality.
|