Christian, I wasn't criticizing you. It was the disappearing professor I was referring to.
mbs
Key word: ideologically. I didn't say that the distinction had any political merits at the moment.
>
> On the economic merits this notion (free trade yes,
> capital mobility no) is also suspect. It's a little
> late to start telling U.S. workers to limit themselves
> to capital controls. The jobs have left already. We've
> had roughly 20 years of wage stagnation and union decline.
>
I didn't mean to suggest that free trade w/o capital mobility would be a viable solution--any more than free capital movement without free trade (i.e. Indonesia) would be. My point in raising S. Korea as an example was to point to the fact that what counts as free trade means what counts for the short-run interests of the equestrian classes.
> I continue to fail to see the difference between these
> two cases:
>
> A) striking workers prevent scabs from doing their jobs
> at lower pay and labor standards; scabs' immediate interests
> are harmed, long-term perhaps not, depending on how the
> labor movement can expand;
>
> B) workers in industrial core prevent competitive imports
> from coming in by some legislative means; for the sake of
> argument, let's suppose the imports do not have the stigma
> of being non-union, child labor, or whatnot.
>
Sure, but that presumes that an international labor movement like the one you envision already exists. If we could get to the place where imports didn't have the stigma of being non-union, that would be something. Until then, core workers' protests will look like an extension of American hegemonism, and for good reason.
> fuck how bogus the anti-dumping suits are. The object is
> to build the labor movement. From an intellectual and
> ethical standpoint, it is better for labor in different
> countries to make common cause, in which context the
> source of imports *would* be germane. If unionized workers
> in X countries are making steel, the way to resolve
> conflicts is to divvy up the market, following the
> principle of keeping everybody advancing in terms of
> living standards. (why else would any national group
> want to join in?) Or devise ways of moving excess
> workers to another sector w/minimal costs to them.
> Clearly the WTO/IMF/WB are not the place for such
> arrangements. There is no place for them right now.
> So nix the whole shootin' match, but hold out the
> alternative of a different sort of globalism.
>
> The real problem w/labor now is not incipient nationalism
> or anti-immigration sentiment. It's the likelihood of a
> deal that ratifies present arrangements w/no more than
> cosmetic modification. This problem and the vacuum it
> entails on the left is also opportunity for Buchanan
> and the right.
>
> mbs
Yep.