Forum Post: Is this about the 99% percent of the world? Or just the U.S.A.
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 4, 2011, 10 p.m. EST by AlternativeSynergy
(224)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Protectionism. Are you pro or con?
Yeah, I love this new technique of trying to prey on young people's concern for the poor and using it to leverage support for "free" trade, ie the opportunity to exploit worldwide.
Its not a technique. I am a liberal who happens to care about what happens to all people in all the countries of the world, especially the poorer ones.
Stupid question. You pull a capitalist buzzword out of your hat, & ask are people for, or against. Point is, we don't even believe that terminology has relevance to all of us trying to live our lives.
If what you call "protectionism" means that trade agreements are negotiated with worker's rights and environmental standards as a part of them, OK - I'm for protectionism in the sense that it protects the greater good, and the greater number - and you should be too.
But is it that stupid of a question (I consider myself a liberal btw)? I am simply asking if you think the movement is about the 99% of the people of the world, or do you just care about the people in the U.S.A. You are talking to an ex-hippie here (actually I was young at that time, more like a hippie wannabe). It has a great deal to do with the soul of the movement.
I care about everyone. Bear in mind that, if trade deals had been negotiated with worker's rights in mind, it would have done a great deal for workers everywhere - not just here. Bear in mind also, that people protesting in other parts of the world are saying to OWS, and Americans in general, something very like: "Welcome aboard, what took you so long?"
How about a global minimum wage and working standards. The 99% can not take the higher road and turn it's back on the remainder of the downtrodden in the world, no matter what country they live.
Yes, you understand what I'm talking about after all. But, those involved in negotiating NAFTA & CAFTA, would have called that "protectionism". From their point of view, yes it is. Protecting people form them.
From Wikipedia: Most economists, including Nobel prize winners Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman, believe that free trade helps workers in developing countries, even though they are not subject to the stringent health and labour standards of developed countries. This is because "the growth of manufacturing — and of the myriad other jobs that the new export sector creates — has a ripple effect throughout the economy" that creates competition among producers, lifting wages and living conditions.
I am first and foremost for Americans. If a few Chinese peasants have to die from malnutrition so that Americans can work less, earn more, and spend more time with their kids I am all for it.
The USA has had many entities that have led global economics so this is about the world. Article 5 must be used to return constitutional government or the contiued global slide will be disasterous on more than one front.----
We need to become accountable for the fact we've let our government be infiltrated by very destructive elements. We had a good president that shared some related facts with us about 45 years ago.-------
http://algoxy.com/psych/audio/jfk_secrecy.mp3
We need an Article 5 convention NOW!
There are many protectionists here. Anti-globalization is a common theme, and it was the explanation from many people for the blockade of the Port of Oakland this week. Although it was not the original explanation from Occupy Oakland for the justification for closing the port, many people involved in the movement assumed that the message was an anti-globalization statement about Chinese imports. (The Occupy Oakland General Assembly actually targeted the port to get involved in a labor dispute 700 miles away.)
I haven't seen many protectionists here at all. Labeling someone a protectionist because they see a MASSIVE trade imbalance is very extreme.
You'll find a lot of anti-globalization sentiment in the responses to this post:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-shut-down-the-port-in-oakland-for-what-purpose/
I gave up after 20 minutes and failing to see any globalization comments. I am also convinced that the vast majority of extreme views, posted on these boards, are trolls. Most OWS supporters are just looking for a sense of balance, IMHO.
From that page:
...
...
...
...
I posted the other day about the Rand report that basically says if we were to try to bring manufacturing back to the US, the Chinese would destroy our economy. The more I consider it, it sounds like hyperbole. Not saying it wouldn't be tough for a while, but I would like to see our economy free of any other government. Particularly a tyrannical one.
I think hippies would say this about the 99% of the world and never argue for protectionism. They care too much about their fellow human beings and do not care what country the meek reside.