Progressive Mexico is Gaining momentum in Latin America

[sam i am]

See attached :

http://www.mexidata.info/id701.html

What's your opinion of this alternate outlook on Chavez's recent "success" at the Summit of the Americas?

[guerillaGardner]

I stopped reading it halfway down - it's from the Fox News school of journalism. Too much opinion and name calling.

I'm undecided on Chavez. Most of my opinion on him is influenced by the brilliant documentary "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised". What puts me off him is that some human rights groups don't like him but then you have to bear in mind that human rights groups don't necessarily understand the concept of having to take a tough stance sometimes. At times I've not agreed with some soft stances they've taken on certain issues.

I'm on the favourable side of undecided towards him. Anyone who is a thorn in the side of rampant free trade gets my vote.

[sam i am]

Anyone who is a thorn in the side of rampant free trade gets my vote.

What about rampant free trade bothers you? I don't mean the kind of "free" trade that still allows for protection of certain domestic industries, but rather truly FREE trade...where there are no barriers to competition?

[guerillaGardner]

What about rampant free trade bothers you? I don't mean the kind of "free" trade that still allows for protection of certain domestic industries, but rather truly FREE trade...where there are no barriers to competition?

Let me think now. Well there's:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/2590163.stm

http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-coke250703.htm

http://www.urban75.com/Action/nestle.html

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=574

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/footandmouth/story/0,9061,548668,00.html

http://www.killercoke.org/crimes.htm

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/accords.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/100900-01.htm

for a start.

What if the barriers to competition are standards in education, sanitation and health? What if a foreign company wants to dump nuclear waste on your doorstep and you cant protest it as that would be a barrier to competition? What if workers rights are a barrier to competition and you're boss could abuse you any way he wanted if to protest was a barrier to competition? What if corporations could buy up schools so that they could set the curriculum to whatever they wanted - pro-fossil and nuclear, anti renewable, anti environmental - and the government was powerless to intervene as that would be a barrier to competition.

And please dont tell me corporations wouldn't do such things. You know they would and that is what the removal of barriers to trade means.

[Ace42X]

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1664984,00.html

[sam i am]

Let me think now.

What if the barriers to competition are standards in education, sanitation and health? What if a foreign company wants to dump nuclear waste on your doorstep and you cant protest it as that would be a barrier to competition? What if workers rights are a barrier to competition and you're boss could abuse you any way he wanted if to protest was a barrier to competition? What if corporations could buy up schools so that they could set the curriculum to whatever they wanted - pro-fossil and nuclear, anti renewable, anti environmental - and the government was powerless to intervene as that would be a barrier to competition.

And please dont tell me corporations wouldn't do such things. You know they would and that is what the removal of barriers to trade means.

OK. Were such things in place BEFORE governments got involved in regulating industries and put up tariff barriers? We can look at the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution to show us some clues....

As for the CURRENT state of economics and international trade : who should decide what barriers and tariffs/duties should be in place to preclude which certain industries or goods from being freely traded? Should coca growers in Colombia have high tariffs against their coffee coming into the US? What would be the ultimate outcome of such barriers? Just an example to get you thinking and see how far you'd be willing to go to defend protectionism....

[sam i am]

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1664984,00.html

Such barriers HAVE been in place in pre-industrial and newly industrializing economies. Latin America has been buffeted by political and econmic upheaval due not entirely to it's own making.

Who is Vietnam's main trading partner?

Tariffs between the US and China have fallen dramatically, allowing the Chinese to grow their economy through the forbearance and purchasing power of the American people (see MFN)

[Ali]

What if the barriers to competition are standards in education, sanitation and health? What if a foreign company wants to dump nuclear waste on your doorstep and you cant protest it as that would be a barrier to competition? What if workers rights are a barrier to competition and you're boss could abuse you any way he wanted if to protest was a barrier to competition? What if corporations could buy up schools so that they could set the curriculum to whatever they wanted - pro-fossil and nuclear, anti renewable, anti environmental - and the government was powerless to intervene as that would be a barrier to competition.

And please dont tell me corporations wouldn't do such things. You know they would and that is what the removal of barriers to trade means."Free Trade" only suits the Big Players. Labour, Environmental and Trade Regulations just get in their way.

Heck, Sam, why don't we just re-introduce Slavery? Not allowing plantation owners to own slaves was a huge blow to their competetive edge, we should never have abolished slavery, it made things much harder for businessmen to make money and everybody had to pay more for their products, didn't they?

Same rules apply now, dude.

[sam i am]

"Free Trade" only suits the Big Players. Labour, Environmental and Trade Regulations just get in their way.

Heck, Sam, why don't we just re-introduce Slavery? Not allowing plantation owners to own slaves was a huge blow to their competetive edge, we should never have abolished slavery, it made things much harder for businessmen to make money and everybody had to pay more for their products, didn't they?

Same rules apply now, dude.

Slavery was coerced labor without compensation.

Compensation of some kind is still a part of all labor/management (or capital) arrangements. Wages might be low and/or working conditions might be poor, BUT as the welfare of the populace increases through increased wealth, wages and benefits go up commensurately. It's happened time and time again throughout human economic history.

Regulations are only necessary to curb excesses - they shouldn't preclude the ability of an employer to employ nor the ability of a employee to be employed or to walk away from a job. We don't have feudalism or slavery - we have capitalism, which allows for the freedom to do those things.

[Ali]

Slavery was coerced labor without compensation.

Compensation of some kind is still a part of all labor/management (or capital) arrangements. Wages might be low and/or working conditions might be poor, BUT as the welfare of the populace increases through increased wealth, wages and benefits go up commensurately. It's happened time and time again throughout human economic history.

Regulations are only necessary to curb excesses - they shouldn't preclude the ability of an employer to employ nor the ability of a employee to be employed or to walk away from a job. We don't have feudalism or slavery - we have capitalism, which allows for the freedom to do those things.We have regulated Capitalism, which prevents the Workers from being completely exploited and keep wages and working conditions reasonable and humane. Market forces alone will not allow with. Without regulations, we revert to slavery.

[sam i am]

We have regulated Capitalism, which prevents the Workers from being completely exploited and keep wages and working conditions reasonable and humane. Market forces alone will not allow with. Without regulations, we revert to slavery.

I don't know that I entirely agree with you there, Mr. ali. There is a good argument to be made that slavery was self-destructive due to the inherent nature of humanity not being ENTIRELY selfish. Capitalism was founded by those who were not only looking out for their own welfare, but also for the welfare of their families, friends, and, by extension, countries.

Current capitalism is much more successful and efficient when the those who are employed are efficient and happy at thier jobs, not when they come to work and are not wanting to be there. The real story of industrialization is that workers, at least in the US, were able to make their needs and wants become reality WITHOUT recourse to revolution or mass sustained violence.

[Ali]

Current capitalism is much more successful and efficient when the those who are employed are efficient and happy at thier jobs, not when they come to work and are not wanting to be there. Workers who are safe, well-paid, who have health and retirement benefits and have job security are "efficient and happy" at their jobs. Market forces dictate that in order to make maximum profit, you need to pay your staff as little as possible, spend as little as possible on securing the workplace and get rid of them as soon as you don't need them.
The real story of industrialization is that workers, at least in the US, were able to make their needs and wants become reality WITHOUT recourse to revolution or mass sustained violence.Regulated industrialisation, with union protection (and a massive boost to the economy in the form of WWII and subsequent arms and peripheral industries).
Capitalism was founded by those who were not only looking out for their own welfare, but also for the welfare of their families, friends, and, by extension, countries.and is maintained by those who are looking out only for the welfare of the shareholders.

[sam i am]

Workers who are safe, well-paid, who have health and retirement benefits and have job security are "efficient and happy" at their jobs. Market forces dictate that in order to make maximum profit, you need to pay your staff as little as possible, spend as little as possible on securing the workplace and get rid of them as soon as you don't need them.
Regulated industrialisation, with union protection (and a massive boost to the economy in the form of WWII and subsequent arms and peripheral industries).
and is maintained by those who are looking out only for the welfare of the shareholders.

Agreed, except for the bit about "....Market forces dictate that in order to make maximum profit, you need to pay your staff as little as possible, spend as little as possible on securing the workplace and get rid of them as soon as you don't need them." I've worked for an EXCEPTIONALLY capitalistic company where the owner suicided rather than lay off workers. I've watched CEO's and CFO's cry and give up millions in bonuses in order to avoid layoffs, at the expense of the company doing poorly.

Publicly traded companies have a harder time, but "shareholders" are often everyday Americans and foreigners who have invested via 401(k)'s and stocks. They are not JUST institutional holders who make the decisions.

We are in a "post-industrial" era now in the US, though, with information and services becoming much more prominent.