What is the progressive position on trade? Positive sum trade—trade that benefits everyone—is good, negative sum trade—trade that benefits some at the expense of others—is bad. How do do we get there? It will take a concerted effort. We want trade that increases productivity and therefore available wealth, the gains of which are shared equitably.
"Take wages out of competition"? Maybe. But not if it means low wages everywhere. We want employers competing with each other to pay higher wages and thus being forced to manage better, not workers competing with each other to work at lower wages and thus made worse off not better.
We should let capital invest overseas. It is the only way to raise the wages of workers everywhere. We should also offer US workers a safe haven for their "labor assets," good jobs at living wages doing things that need to be done.
If private equity isn't interested in investing in such enterprises because the rate of return is only respectable and not obscene, then public equity can and should. Everybody who wants to work should have access to a good job at a living wage, and if the private sector won't provide it, the public sector should.
How do we get there? We need new political thinking and a new political formations that put the interests of working people and wages first, and not those of investors and profits. It is a long term, but also a global, project. We won't get there on our own bottoms! We need to join with and take the workers of the world with us. Otherwise, capital will continue to whipsaw us against each other.
I appreciate your publication and point of view a great deal and I know that more Democrats like the nice people you lampoon in this piece need to read it. However, you and your colleagues who so effectively critique the left need to step up and do some organizing in addition to writing. I'm involved with Indivisible and I think we are doing some good work, but I would be thrilled to contribute my time and energy and even my money to a campaign that foregrounds the issues you focus on. I've tried to find one and can't -- if I'm missing it, please let me know what it is. If it doesn't exist, please create one -- I'm happy to help you -- and stop slamming your nice neighbors who are trying to preserve the social safety net. That's mostly what Hands Off is about and it's very much also a working-class issue ... don't you agree? I hope to hear from you.
I was with a group of union officials during the 1993 Senate vote authorizing NAFTA, so I know the general attitude was NO. And your book makes clear working class votes for the D party have fallen ever since. No surprise the 1%ers and multinational corporations benefitted; they give millions to election campaigns to assure their agenda dominates. Perhaps these forms of international trade do produce the greatest good for the greatest number, but the arguments for must not have much evidence to support them or the Ds would be able to show us why.
I was also at the anti-WTO demonstrations I'm proud to say became known as the 'Battle of Seattle.' Groups against? Unions, eco-activists, Indigenous peoples, churches, small businesses, alt. economists, scientists, small farmers, supporters of political and economic democracy, and more, both locals and people from all around the world. Those for? The multinational corporations, their political lapdogs, and the neolib hack economists who assert this arrangement is best with little, if any empirical evidence to confirm their claims Guess who counts and who doesn't. Just like the current blather about government efficiency, the question is: FOR WHOM?!
Since when have plutocrats been trustworthy allies? Obviously the cost of consumer goods will rise steeply. New manufacturing jobs would take years to materialize, if they ever do. The Rs are also calling for tax cuts to create prosperity for all. Oh sure. Their actual goal is to get rid of the income tax by asserting tariffs will mean grand revenues, rendering income tax unnecessary. To say the least, their numbers are highly suspect. Read the brief, reasonable arguments against tariffs by Omar Ocampo at the Institute for Policy Studies (Inequality.org) reposted on Consortium News Apr. 4, 2025.
Labor needs to consider the probability this is yet again about enriching the few at the expense of the many. I'm not saying tariffs are bad automatically, just that those for must be able to demonstrate precisely how this would help the working class. To be real about which versions are most likely. And if what seems good were adopted, can we trust either major party to keep it going for the years needed before we see beneficial econ results?
What is the progressive position on trade? Positive sum trade—trade that benefits everyone—is good, negative sum trade—trade that benefits some at the expense of others—is bad. How do do we get there? It will take a concerted effort. We want trade that increases productivity and therefore available wealth, the gains of which are shared equitably.
"Take wages out of competition"? Maybe. But not if it means low wages everywhere. We want employers competing with each other to pay higher wages and thus being forced to manage better, not workers competing with each other to work at lower wages and thus made worse off not better.
We should let capital invest overseas. It is the only way to raise the wages of workers everywhere. We should also offer US workers a safe haven for their "labor assets," good jobs at living wages doing things that need to be done.
If private equity isn't interested in investing in such enterprises because the rate of return is only respectable and not obscene, then public equity can and should. Everybody who wants to work should have access to a good job at a living wage, and if the private sector won't provide it, the public sector should.
How do we get there? We need new political thinking and a new political formations that put the interests of working people and wages first, and not those of investors and profits. It is a long term, but also a global, project. We won't get there on our own bottoms! We need to join with and take the workers of the world with us. Otherwise, capital will continue to whipsaw us against each other.
Tx Les. Very helpful.
I appreciate your publication and point of view a great deal and I know that more Democrats like the nice people you lampoon in this piece need to read it. However, you and your colleagues who so effectively critique the left need to step up and do some organizing in addition to writing. I'm involved with Indivisible and I think we are doing some good work, but I would be thrilled to contribute my time and energy and even my money to a campaign that foregrounds the issues you focus on. I've tried to find one and can't -- if I'm missing it, please let me know what it is. If it doesn't exist, please create one -- I'm happy to help you -- and stop slamming your nice neighbors who are trying to preserve the social safety net. That's mostly what Hands Off is about and it's very much also a working-class issue ... don't you agree? I hope to hear from you.
I was with a group of union officials during the 1993 Senate vote authorizing NAFTA, so I know the general attitude was NO. And your book makes clear working class votes for the D party have fallen ever since. No surprise the 1%ers and multinational corporations benefitted; they give millions to election campaigns to assure their agenda dominates. Perhaps these forms of international trade do produce the greatest good for the greatest number, but the arguments for must not have much evidence to support them or the Ds would be able to show us why.
I was also at the anti-WTO demonstrations I'm proud to say became known as the 'Battle of Seattle.' Groups against? Unions, eco-activists, Indigenous peoples, churches, small businesses, alt. economists, scientists, small farmers, supporters of political and economic democracy, and more, both locals and people from all around the world. Those for? The multinational corporations, their political lapdogs, and the neolib hack economists who assert this arrangement is best with little, if any empirical evidence to confirm their claims Guess who counts and who doesn't. Just like the current blather about government efficiency, the question is: FOR WHOM?!
Since when have plutocrats been trustworthy allies? Obviously the cost of consumer goods will rise steeply. New manufacturing jobs would take years to materialize, if they ever do. The Rs are also calling for tax cuts to create prosperity for all. Oh sure. Their actual goal is to get rid of the income tax by asserting tariffs will mean grand revenues, rendering income tax unnecessary. To say the least, their numbers are highly suspect. Read the brief, reasonable arguments against tariffs by Omar Ocampo at the Institute for Policy Studies (Inequality.org) reposted on Consortium News Apr. 4, 2025.
Labor needs to consider the probability this is yet again about enriching the few at the expense of the many. I'm not saying tariffs are bad automatically, just that those for must be able to demonstrate precisely how this would help the working class. To be real about which versions are most likely. And if what seems good were adopted, can we trust either major party to keep it going for the years needed before we see beneficial econ results?