The New York Times editorial writers will never get it when it comes to trade (I’m not even going to mention how wrong Tom Friedman is on this issue…I’ve flogged his nonsense enough so I’ll pass today). Today, the Times has a lead editorial entitled “A Bipartisan Trade Policy.” Ah, yes, I knew it was coming: the well-educated elites are giving us the rap that so-called “free trade” is one of those wonderful things that we should embrace across the political divide (echoing the mantra regarding “national security”). This editorial is important simply because of the window it gives us on the thinking of the elites who want to continue the current disastrous system of trade.
The Times asserts:
Over all, trade has been very good to the United States, which is still the world’s largest exporter of goods and services. The trade liberalization measures put in place after World War II produce now, by one estimate, an additional $1 trillion in income for Americans annually, and millions of new jobs. The inexpensive foreign goods that arrive here because of free trade keep prices down. Low prices are good for consumers, and by keeping inflation and interest rates in check, they encourage economic growth and job creation.
The first puzzling and troubling fact is that The Times, which claims to be vigilant about sourcing, doesn’t tell the reader who is the producer of the “one estimate.” Is it the Oracle of Delphi? Or perhaps one of the pro- so-called “free trade” shill groups like the International Institute for Economics (that would be the group that predicted wonderful results for American and Mexican workers from the passage of NAFTA–and was dead wrong)? No one knows. We don’t know what the bias is of this hidden group.
But, the figure cited by The Times is just as important–the fact that trade, if you want to accept the figure, produces $1 trillion in extra income does not tell you much about HOW THAT INCOME IS DISTRIBUTED!!! We are seeing the most intense divergence between rich and poor in at least a century, where the top one percent of the population is reaping a growing portion of the nation’s income. The Times itself reported in June 2005, in an excellent article by David Cay Johnston, that, “From 1950 to 1970, for example, for every additional dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent, those in the top 0.01 percent earned an additional $162, according to the Times analysis. From 1990 to 2002, for every extra dollar earned by those in the bottom 90 percent, each taxpayer at the top brought in an extra $18,000.” In other words, the fact that total national income went up as a whole is not telling us much of the story–and, certainly, is not something to justify the toll being exacted by so-called “free trade.”
Is does not tell the reader, to take the other point of job creation, what kinds of jobs have been created. Inflation may be in check (that’s debatable, given how inflation is measured and how families are being squeezed regardless of the official inflation rate because of stagnant incomes and health care costs, to mention just two factors) but does that do anyone much good if the jobs–need I say the word “Wal-Mart”–are low-paying and lack benefits? In fact, it’s not by chance that Wal-Mart loves so-called “free trade”: it could not survive without the cheap labor (made possible by a controlled labor market in China) that is the essence of so-called “free trade.”
A note about low prices: we wear different hats in society. Yes, one is as a consumer. But, we also are workers, citizens, parents and neighbors. Americans love low prices BUT I have also sat behind a one-way mirror and watched focus groups of Americans, who say that they would pay a few more pennies or a dollar or two more if it meant that our entire society could have a decent of living. We are like drug addicts: big corporations have us hooked on this mania to drive prices even lower, and, yet, deep inside, people are increasingly seeing that there is a steep and hurtful price to pay for Wal-Mart-like models.
So, now, The Times really gets revved up. The editorial acknowledges that hundreds of thousands of workers have gotten axed because of trade (no mention that many of the jobs were good-paying jobs, with decent benefits–the very jobs that created a strong middle-class). But, wait, we can have it both ways:
Now that the Democrats control Congress, they can champion both free trade and the rights of American workers. They should push to improve the social safety net, especially access to health insurance. And they should promote increased retraining and wage assistance for displaced workers.
This is a sleight of hand that is, frankly, dishonest. As some readers will know, I have maintained that there is no such thing as so-called “free trade.” These so-called “free trade” agreements are simply deals that set the rules of the game. In the current environment, they set the rules in favor of large corporations by effectively driving competition based one major factor: wages.
What the passage above effectively says is: tough luck, workers. Trade deals have been structured for the benefit of corporations. That’s life and you just have to accept the way the world is–and we’ll make it a little easier by throwing in some retraining classes and improve the safety net a little. But, this is the framework you will live with. I wonder: would a New York Times editorial writer be willing to accept a little wage assistance and retraining in return for the wonder of lower prices?
The Times also urges the Democrats to support, as part of giving us more of the wonders of so-called “free trade,” the extension of fast track negotiating authority. Fast-track allows the president to cut a so-called “free trade” deal, and submit it to Congress for an up or down vote–members of Congress are not allowed to amend the legislation. Whenever I write that explanation, I am shocked anew by the blatantly anti-democratic nature of fast track: your rights as a citizen to have your representative give you a voice on these matters is effectively killed!
And to that I say our challenge is to get Democrats to say: HELL NO! I have disagreed with my colleagues who work hard and valiantly to force these so-called “free trade” deals to include provisions on labor and the environment. For this reason: those provisions are effectively throwing us crumbs in return for people accepting a system that is dooming millions of people around the world to a life of struggle and economic insecurity.
What we need is to junk the current system. We have to begin putting together a trade regime that benefits people first. In fact, The Times lamely tries to make that point at the very end of the editorial:
Democrats are right to insist that the trade agenda advance the interests of all Americans, not just large corporations. But they need to acknowledge that putting the brakes on global growth is still the surest path to losing American job.
But, the truth is it’s the very global growth being pursued that is the surest path to Americans losing their jobs–and, for that matter, forcing people around the world to work for low wages. If it means fighting to end so-called “free trade,” to heck with “bi-partisanship.” To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, partisanship in the name of a decent living for workers and against abusive corporate power is desired, required and most urgently needed.
