Sirotablog

David Sirota is a political journalist and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist at Creators Syndicate. David writes about political corruption, globalization and working-class economic issues often ignored by both of America's political parties.

  • July 9, 2007 9:44 AM

    Trade & Globalization: The Coming Political Earthquake in the Rocky Mountain West

    A few months ago, I had the opportunity to ask Bill Gates a question at the International Economic Forum in Butte, Montana after he had just delivered a speech claiming that America's current free trade policies will benefit the Rocky Mountain region by creating high-paying information sector jobs. I asked Gates why this region should have any realistic hope that this information-based economic utopia could permanently take hold here, when the wage-destroying trade and the H-1B visa policies that he advocated for were creating an incentive for corporations like his to outsource as many jobs as possible to low-wage countries? Gates ended up acknowledging that, in fact, this region shouldn't have any real hope - and his moment of candor was confirmed this weekend by a little-noticed story in the Denver Post's business section this weekend that has implications for the American West's economy and its politics.

    Though many political observers cloistered in Washington tend to think of trade as an issue only for Midwestern manufacturing workers or Southern textile workers, the Post's story reports that "U.S. companies looking to cut costs" are now being "drawn to cheap labor" in Latin America and away from fledgling information economies in the Rocky Mountain West. The story cites a recent Brookings Institution study that reports "demand for cheaper labor poses a threat to the information technology job base in places like Boulder, Denver and Colorado Springs." Specifically, the study predicts that by 2015, Boulder will lose between 3.1 percent and 4 percent of its information technology jobs, while Denver and Colorado Springs could lose from 2.6 percent to 3 percent of those jobs. And the hemorrhaging looks like it may already be starting. The Denver Business Journal recently reported that Denver lost 1,700 information sector jobs last year alone.

    What's fascinating about this story is the admission of what I will call Free Trade's Downward Spiral. Today, corporate front groups in Washington and the politicians they buy who push so-called "free" trade tell us that when jobs leave the United States, at least they move to a place where they help poor people earn a better living. But as the Post's story shows (inadvertently), that is a fable:

    "American companies, which rushed to India - a 600-pound gorilla among offshoring destinations - over the past 10 years, are looking elsewhere as wages have risen in that country...The collapse of the peso in 2002 sent Argentine wages plummeting below the level paid in India and helped to attract U.S. business to the South American country."

    As we see, the idea that free trade is designed to lift everyone up is a myth. What really happens is that as soon as more economic benefits begin going to workers in a low-wage country, our free trade policies are used by companies to pick up and head for an even more economically desperate nation, leaving economic destruction in its wake. As I've written before, this happened in our manufacturing sector during NAFTA's transfer of jobs to Mexico, it happened in Mexico after the Clinton administration passed China PNTR and companies could find slave labor in China, and it is even happening now in China, as companies are claiming that workers there are starting to make too much, and are thus looking to open up shop in Communist Vietnam and perhaps even North Korea (no joke). Similarly, it is happening with our information sector. Jobs that were once here, first went to India, but now that Indian wages are supposedly "high," they are going to move to even more desperate places.

    More and more folks in the Rocky Mountain West are realizing the harsh realities of the prepackaged free trade fundamentalism spoonfed to us by Republicans and so-called "moderate" Democrats. A 2003 report from the Economic Policy Institute showed that in every Rocky Mountain state other than Nevada, wages in growing industries are substantially lower than in contracting industries. EPI also reports that Colorado alone has seen a net loss of about 40,000 jobs thanks directly to NAFTA and China PNTR. And with many of the states out here trying to diversify their economies from ones based primarily in natural resources to ones with vibrant information technology/services industries, America's pro-outsourcing trade policies make this region increasingly vulnerable to the same kind of economic devastation that the Midwest and Deep South has experienced in manufacturing and textiles - devastation cheered on by the free trade fundamentalists like billionaire New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who are held up as deities in Washington, D.C. The trade policy these class warriors push is designed specifically to allow our trading partners to create comparative economic advantages by oppressing workers, busting unions and allowing environmental degradation - advantages that Corporate America is only too happy to use to cut costs through outsourcing jobs.

    Politically, this is a earthquake waiting to happen, and there have already been some pretty clear pre-tremors. The immigration debate, for instance, was a proxy (and altogether distorted/manipulated) debate for the broader debate over globalization that is now just emerging. And at the times when the globalization debate has been even more direct out here, the results have been powerful.

    In Montana, the State Senate this year passed a resolution demanding Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) use his power to stop President Bush's request to reauthorize "fast track" free trade authority - the authority that lets him strip out all labor, human rights and environmental provisions from trade deals. Baucus - one of the most committed free traders in Congress - has to date bowed to the pressure.

    Similarly, in 2006, the Colorado legislature passed a tough resolution condemning our existing trade policies and demanding the state government ratify its acquiescence to such deals with a vote of the legislature. The bill was unfortunately vetoed by Big Money's favorite governor, Bill Owens, who, as CNN reported was "one of 19 governors who have adopted rules for his state" that ban the state from targeting taxpayer-funded jobs to domestic companies. Nonetheless, the bill's passage by a wide bipartisan margin in the Assembly symbolizes the growing anger at trade and globalization policies written by lobbyists, for Corporate America, and against the interests of working people. And many of Colorado's congressional representatives have responded.

    Last year, Colorado's House and Senate Democratic representatives all voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), shunning the influence of their K Street-funded front-group allies like the Democratic Leadership Council.

    This CAFTA example was no small reflection of how the political tectonic plates are moving out here on trade. Corporate America aggressively pushed for CAFTA with some of the most misleading arguments, such as the one that said that because CAFTA countries only had an economy the size of New Haven, Connecticut, the deal was extremely small and inconsequential. However, while it may be true that Central America's combined GDP may be the size of a 125,000 person New England town, the countries there and in the Dominican Republic (which was also part of the deal) have a population of 50 million largely impoverished people with slave wages, few human rights protections and even fewer environmental safeguards. These are the people that Big Money interests want to be able to legally exploit through American trade policy by shipping jobs from places like the Rocky Mountain West to sweatshops south of the border. And Democratic lawmakers here responded by resisting the pressure and standing up for their constituents.

    As 2008 approaches, the trade issue is going to be big in the Rocky Mountain West, especially because President Bush and some congressional Democrats continue to push for more NAFTA-style agreements through The Secret Trade Deal of 2007. Already, top-tier candidates like Wyoming's Gary Trauner (D) have made clear they may be using the issue to hammer the GOP for its ties to Big Money interests. Republicans like Colorado Rep. Marilyn Musgrave who voted for CAFTA and who was labeled part of the infamously bought-off "CAFTA 30" by nonpartisan watchdog groups may find themselves answering uncomfortable questions on the campaign trail about why they have used their position in Congress to wage K Street's war on this region's working class. And squishy, DLC-affiliated Democrats from this region like Baucus and Colorado's Ken Salazar are going to be on the hot seat as well, playing potentially decisive roles in deciding whether the Democratic Party continues championing the populist, fair-trade model it used so successfully in 2006 to win Congress, or whether the Democratic Party succumbs to its pro-NAFTA Wall Street wing and ends up with the shortest lasting majority in modern congressional history. Stay tuned.

Discussion

  • Henry Dubb [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    This might sound funny but what do you mean by fair trade. Many of the populists were 'anti free trade', which is great, but that does not make them for fair trade. I have liked how you in the past have re-framed the trade issue as fair trade and anti-fair trade. But it seems fair trade is defined by what its not, rather than what it is.

    I guess I'm asking what fair trade is on its own terms.

    Posted on July 9, 2007 10:42 AM
  • waltc [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    Gates is one nasty piece of shit thats for sure. His company is one a major user of H1-B workers and does a lot of off-shoring as well.

    Gates himself is for allowing unlimited numbers of H1-B workers into the U.S. and has lobbyied the Bush administration for this as well.

    The fucker makes old Henry Ford look enlightened and a socialist by comparison. Then again what could we expect from a man who stole other peoples intellectual property for the last 25 years to get where he is.

    As for "fair trade" it can only honestly occur between economic equals or close to it. It is not possible however IMO when the economic and power disparities are so great(like the U.S. and Colombia) that it naturally gives the more powerful partner a lot of say. Nor does it work when the gov'ts we negotiate with are corrupt or outright oligarchies. In those cases the workers in those countries will be screwed no matter what the paperwork says.

    Furthermore we can't negotiate "fair trade" if we wanted too. Congress is infested with K Street whores like Rangel, Pelosi and Hoyer who will prevent any fair trade deals from going through.
    IMO

    Posted on July 9, 2007 12:32 PM
  • 3rdOption [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    Boy, is Sheehan doing the Democrats a favor.

    This kind of thing will be touted by Republicans with glee, but what it really does is call out the closet NeoCons and Corporatists of the Democratic leadership who are talking out of both sides of their mouths on this war.

    If you want the Democratic party to be successful in the future, the first thing you must do is purge the Corporatists, even (and especially) the ones with committee leadership.

    Then we need public financing of elections. That's a one/two punch against the degrading forces of corruption in our system.

    Posted on July 9, 2007 4:02 PM
  • Henry Dubb [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    One reason I was asking is my idea of fair trade is probably is little to the left of many of the populists. For example, where I get my coffee is worker owned and the coffee plantations are worker owned. A related component is a particular cup of coffee can be traced to a specific coop. This is central to any attempt at food security - toothpaste anyone.

    This is of course a very micro view that may be independent of 'fair trade' policies on the federal level. So, what would a fair trade trade bill look like. Is there such a thing? What fair trade things have these populists been doing besides being against the AFTA's. I guess my point is thus far they have put the brakes on freetrade, but really have not offered an alternate vision.

    Posted on July 9, 2007 8:00 PM
  • waltc [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    Sheehan is also now persona non-grata among the online community because of her decision. You'd think she's the devil incarnate after deciding to challenge Pelosi. I've never seen such a convulsion among the netroots like this ever since I started reading their blogs in '03.

    I think the collective response we've seen is as 3rdOption says is showing everyone how badly infested the Democrats are with status-quo corporatists and neocon warmongering types.

    Whats funny is that all she needs to do is keep making the kind of comments she has and the corruptors will continue to expose themselves both online and in the party itself.

    All in all Cindy's participation is the best thing thats happened to the Democratic party in many decades. She's the Rachael Carson of politics.

    And every time Democrats attack her - a single mom who lost her child in a illegal war it only shows the world what sort of assholes and junior Stalinists that inhabit the Democratic party.

    Posted on July 9, 2007 8:44 PM
  • Henry Dubb [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    I've never really been a fan of Cindy. But, it certainly is interesting how in a few short years she went from Mother Theresa to the devil herself.

    I think the real angst is with an independent run. A lot of Dems are still upset about 2000 and are in preventive assault mode. Somehow they think a Lieberman presidency is what we need right now.

    Clearly I see this as voter suppression. If you limit choices at the ballot box you limit or suppress voter participation. I have not voted for a Dem since 92 and paid ever so dearly and won't imagine doing so in the near future.

    Posted on July 10, 2007 4:35 AM
  • butte [TypeKey Profile Page] :

    Not voting for a Democrat is can be counter-productive, like shooting yourself in the foot. There's not much out there if you eliminate Democrats. Third party candidates are pretty much a waste of votes.
    The thing is to support populist Democrat candidates, and work to fire the Republi-lite sell-outs in the party.
    That said, I will not vote for Clinton, even if she is, God forbid, nominated for president, I will write in a candidate. I will not vote for a Republican even if she is calling herself a Democrat.

    Posted on July 10, 2007 8:47 AM

Join the Discussion

Post a comment